The Pennsylvania State University

The Graduate School

College of Education

FORECASTING THE COMPETENCIES THAT WILL DEFINE

“BEST-IN-CLASS” BUSINESS-TO-BUSINESS MARKET

MANAGERS: AN EMERGENT DELPHI-HYBRID COMPETENCY

FORECASTING MODEL

A Thesis in

Workforce Education and Development

by

Allen C. Stines

© 2003 Allen C. Stines

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

December 2003

The thesis of Allen C. Stines was reviewed and approved* by the following:

Paul E. Krueger Assistant Professor of Education Thesis Advisor Chair of Committee William J. Rothwell Professor of Education Ralph A. Oliva Professor of Marketing Judith A. Kolb Associate Professor of Education Kenneth C. Gray Professor of Education Professor-in-Charge, Workforce Education and Development

* Signatures are on file in the Graduate School

iii

Abstract

First, this study sought to generate and critically analyze a concise, systematic

and rigorous multi-method approach to future-oriented competency modeling. The next

phase involved using this hybrid methodology and with the help of top business market

management experts around the world, develop a model that will profile exemplary

business-to-business market managers five years into the future. A prospective

naturalistic inquiry methodology centered on a pragmatic inductive analysis approach

was used because of the exploratory nature of this study. Such an approach allowed for a

tremendous amount of flexibility and tolerated slight adjustments of the study’s design

based on the data: the researcher could look into new directions that had not been

originally anticipated. This research was conducted using a modified Delphi technique

where the initial Delphic instrument was designed using a literature review, interviews

and expert review panels.

Business marketing practitioners, educators and researchers were consulted in

the pre-Delphic stages of the study. All these individuals were selected based on variants

of purposeful sampling approaches. Prior to the Delphi, a prelusive competency model

was developed through an environmental scanning process conducted simultaneously

with a literature review supplemented with a series of review panels composed of

business market management practitioners and researchers. All the members of these

panels were attendees of ISBM educator consortium meetings that took place in Atlanta

(Georgia); Pittsburgh (Pennsylvania) and State College (Pennsylvania). Prior to being

sent to the Delphic panelists, the first iteration instrument was scrutinized by 27 survey

researchers who were asked to critique the clarity of the instructions, the functionality of

iv

the layout and to identify flaws such as loaded questions, double barrel statements and

so forth.

The Delphi panelists were selected using a purposive non-probabilistic dual-stage

stratified sampling technique mixed with a snowball approach. Initially, 25 experts from

each group (educators and practitioners) with expertise in over a dozen areas within B-

to-B market management were identified and nominated. The second step of the

sampling process involved asking these 50 experts to nominate additional experts for the

Delphi panel. The subjects represented three continents and a wide range of expertise.

At the end of the first Delphic iteration, a preliminary functional competency

model was developed and refined with the assistance of the Delphic panel. In an effort to

further enhance the model, data were collected separately from the two groups of expert

participants during the second and third iterations of the modified Delphi process. Three

main data collection methods were used throughout this piece of research which took

place over a period of three years punctuated by the ups and downs of the American

economy.

The design of the competency model entailed three main steps: construction, de-

construction and reconstruction. The construction phase involved all the stages from the

project’s inception until the end of the last iteration of the Delphi. During the process,

153 competencies were identified, arranged into 17 functional clusters and rated by the

Delphic panel. Using the quantitative data, the model was deconstructed and its various

parts examined. It was later reconstructed based on the results of the analysis.

In the last two iterations of the Delphi, the panelists rated the competencies using

a 6-level (1= least important ... 6= most important) dichotomous (1,2,3 = supplemental

and 4,5,6= core) Likert-type scale. Due to (1) the nature of the study, (2) the fact that the

v

data were inherently qualitative and subjective, and (3) the data measured concepts that

were heuristic in nature, the researcher deemed it prudent to treat the quantitative data

at the ordinal level using non-inferential and non-parametric approaches. Agreement

within the groups was measured for each competency in order to assess levels of

consensus, differences within the groups were measured to identify controversial

competencies and inter-rater reliability was measured to assess the consistency of the

ratings. Competencies were clustered in order of importance and a competency “kernel”

was identified. Since a large number of competencies were identified, the data were

analyzed and broken down into a series of “perspectives” with more manageable

“chunks” of data:

(1) The first perspective looked at the instruments that were utilized to collect the

data. A coefficient of reliability was used to measure inter-item reliability.

(2) The second perspective looked at the experts who generated the competencies.

Descriptive data on all the participants were organized and examined; inter-rater

reliability was measured. In a preliminary attempt to estimate consensus building, inter-

rater reliability was measured using the ICC(3,k) two-way mixed model average measure

reliability (please note that the latter was done with caution). In all the cases, the Delphi

panelists were a fixed effect and the only judges of interest.

(3) The third perspective looked at all 153 ratings to identify areas of dissentience

between the two expert groups. The latter were labeled: “controversial competencies”.

The differences between the two groups were examined and the competencies on which

the two groups diverged were isolated. Four levels of dissentience were identified at the

end of this analysis.

vi

(4) Once the controversial competencies had been isolated, the remaining traits

were assessed. The fourth perspective identified and analyzed the highest rated

competencies in the model, which were branded: “kernel competencies”.

(5) After the kernel and controversial competencies had been identified, the

outstanding traits were analyzed to isolate the remaining core competencies. The latter

were further subdivided into 4 categories that emerged from the data.

(6) Perspective six looked at the residual, non-core competencies (identified as

“supplemental competencies”). These lowest rated cases were analyzed and clustered

into 5 categories.

(7) The final part of the analysis looked at the modified Delphi process as a

consensus-building tool: the evolution of consensus within the two groups and between

the last two iterations was examined. While perspective 2 examined the data in the early

phases of the quantitative process, this analysis used a holistic approach and provided

snapshots of the consensus building process.

In an attempt to provide a more comprehensive view of the data, an emergent

model based on the six strata of the 102 “core” competencies was synthesized. The latter

depicted the data in a less compartmentalized and myopic manner than seen thus far

and offered a comprehensive view of the competencies. Aside from the “controversial

core” competencies, each stratum exhibited commonalities between its component

competencies:

- The kernel. Composed of six main themes, the kernel represented the most important

competencies that will define exceptional business marketers over the next five years.

- Tier 2. The second level of competencies (based on importance) encompassed various

aspects of the design of a competitive strategy, especially segmentation.

vii

- Tiers 3 through 5. The last three levels of the model focused more on the execution of

marketing strategy and the marketing plan.

- Controversial “core”. The competencies in this stratum were labeled as controversial

because the two expert groups diverged in the perceived importance of these

competencies. The ratings from the two groups attested that these competencies were

“core”, albeit the researchers and educators could not agree on their degree of

importance.

In an effort to offer a more complete assessment of the findings, two additional

expositions were offered. In the second adaptation of the model, the 102 core

competencies were broken down and reanalyzed to synthesize the “Emergent Functional

Model” (EFM). The latter was based only on competencies that had been identified as

“core” by both expert groups. The third synthesis of the model, the “Emergent Systems

Model” (ESM) was exploratory and sought to depict the interdependencies and

relationships that exist between the core competencies. This holistic perspective of the

business-to-business market management competencies was built based on concepts

borrowed from systems theory and cybernetics (first and second order). The ESM blurs

the line between individual and organizational market management competencies.

From the point of view of the competencies as a system, the most critical concept

identified was “segmentation”, a concept that is omnipresent throughout the model.

Most of the technical and marketing process-related competencies rely heavily on the

accuracy or the appropriateness of the segmentation scheme. Segmentation is somewhat

the technical manifestation of truly “understanding the customer”, the top competency

out of the entire pool of 153. Furthermore, it is at the heart of strategy.

viii

Looking at the competencies as a system, it is critical that the b-to-b market

management function be setup in such a way that market strategy is guided and

controlled through a series of negative and positive feedback loops. The ESM maps a

market strategy paradigm that is controlled through a series of sensing activities aimed

at detecting and predicting environmental changes. Based on input collected and

assimilated through the marketing function, marketing strategy is slightly corrected to

adapt to changing market conditions (negative feedback loop) or it is redrafted or

redesigned to adapt in anticipation of drastic changes in the markets (positive feedback

loop). At the heart of this anticipatory self-correcting model is an adaptive segmentation

approach.

ix

Table of Contents

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... xvi

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... xx

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................... xxi

PREFACE..................................................................................................................... xxiii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .......................................................................................... xxvii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................... 1

Introduction ............................................................................................................... 2

Statement of the problem .......................................................................................... 4

Purpose of the study .................................................................................................. 6

Need for the study ..................................................................................................... 8

Objectives.................................................................................................................. 9

Delimitations and assumptions................................................................................ 10

Limitations .............................................................................................................. 12

Definitions of terms................................................................................................. 13

Conceptual framework overview ............................................................................ 15

x

Summary ................................................................................................................. 17

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW...................................................................... 18

Introduction ............................................................................................................. 19

Business-to-business marketing education.............................................................. 19

From an industry perspective......................................................................... 20

From an education perspective ...................................................................... 21

The past decade and the next 10 years........................................................... 24

Competence............................................................................................................. 27

An historical synopsis.................................................................................... 28

Using competency models to prepare for the future...................................... 31

Applications of competency models.............................................................. 32

Approaches to the competency identification................................................ 39

I.- The borrowed approach............................................................................ 41

II.- The tailored approach ............................................................................. 43

III.- The borrowed-and-tailored approach.................................................... 59

Occupation-based model ............................................................................... 59

Delphi ...................................................................................................................... 61

Looking into the future with Delphi .............................................................. 61

Large Delphic studies .................................................................................... 65

Using Delphi in competency studies ............................................................. 68

xi

Summary ................................................................................................................. 74

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY.................................................................................. 76

Introduction ............................................................................................................. 77

Naturalistic inquiry and inductive methods ............................................................ 80

Delphi methodology................................................................................................ 83

Characteristics of the Delphi technique......................................................... 84

Consensus and Delphi method....................................................................... 86

Reliability and the Delphi technique ............................................................. 86

Different flavors of Delphi ............................................................................ 88

Delphi vs. alternatives ................................................................................... 89

i) Delphi vs. statistical measures.............................................................. 90

ii) Delphi vs. content analysis ................................................................... 91

Primary data collection methodologies ................................................................... 92

Environmental scanning ................................................................................ 94

Content analysis............................................................................................. 96

Sampling in content analysis ......................................................................... 98

Reliability issues related to content analysis................................................. 99

Validity issues related to content analysis................................................... 101

Self-administered surveys............................................................................ 104

Subjects and subject selection ............................................................................... 106

xii

Pre-Delphi.................................................................................................... 106

Delphi .......................................................................................................... 108

The Delphic iterations ........................................................................................... 112

Delphi preparations...................................................................................... 114

Iteration (round) one .................................................................................... 118

Iteration (round) two.................................................................................... 120

Iteration (round) three.................................................................................. 122

Survey design ........................................................................................................ 124

Quantitative analysis ............................................................................................. 126

Summary ............................................................................................................... 128

CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS ............................................................................................. 129

Introduction ........................................................................................................... 130

Perspective one...................................................................................................... 132

Evolution of the survey instruments ............................................................ 133

Internal consistency of scale........................................................................ 134

Perspective Two .................................................................................................... 136

Delphi panel description .............................................................................. 136

Panelists’ rating patterns.............................................................................. 141

Interrater reliability...................................................................................... 145

Measuring consensus ................................................................................... 146

xiii

Perspective three ................................................................................................... 147

Controversial competencies......................................................................... 149

Truly divergent competencies. ..................................................................... 150

Controversial “core” competencies ............................................................ 152

Controversial “supplemental” competencies.............................................. 152

Additional controversial competencies........................................................ 154

Perspective Four .................................................................................................... 157

Kernel competencies.................................................................................... 157

Additional kernel competencies .................................................................. 162

Perspective 5 ......................................................................................................... 163

Tier 2 competencies..................................................................................... 164

Tier 3 core competencies ............................................................................. 168

Tier 4 core competencies ............................................................................. 171

Tier 5 core competencies ............................................................................. 175

Perspective six....................................................................................................... 176

Borderline competencies ............................................................................. 177

Cases with low levels of agreement within both groups. ............................ 180

Cases with low levels of agreement within the practitioners. ..................... 181

Cases with low levels of agreement within the educators. .......................... 183

Lowest rated competencies.......................................................................... 183

Perspective 7 ......................................................................................................... 185

Evolution of consensus building.................................................................. 185

xiv

Summary of the perspectives ................................................................................ 188

CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS....... 190

Introduction ........................................................................................................... 191

Holistic perspective A: The Emergent Model (EM) ............................................. 192

Holistic perspective B: The Emergent Functional Model (EFM) ......................... 197

Holistic perspective C: The Emergent Systems Model (ESM)............................. 200

Future research on business marketing competencies........................................... 207

Review of the process- Panelists’ perspective ...................................................... 208

Discussion ............................................................................................................. 211

Conclusion............................................................................................................. 217

REFERENCES.............................................................................................................. 223

APPENDIX A – LIST OF JOURNALS AND PERIODICALS USED IN

CONTENT ANALYSIS................................................................... 236

APPENDIX B – HUMAN SUBJECTS ....................................................................... 242

APPENDIX C – STUDY PORTAL WWW.B2BCOMPETENCIES.COM ......... 248

APPENDIX D – DELPHIC INSTRUMENTS ........................................................... 262

xv

APPENDIX E –IDENTIFICATION OF KERNEL COMPETENCIES ................. 299

APPENDIX F – IDENTIFICATION OF ADDITIONAL “CORE”

COMPETENCIES ............................................................................ 305

APPENDIX G – LIST OF COMPETENCIES IDENTIFIED THROUGH

THE DELPHIC PROCESS ............................................................ 310

APPENDIX H – LETTERS OF SUPPORT ............................................................... 318

xvi

List of figures

Figure 3.1. Research model ..................................................................................... 79

Figure 3.2. Illustration of inductive process leading to the synthesis of the emergent competency model ........................................................... 82

Figure 3.3. Three main data collection methods...................................................... 92

Figure 3.4. Data Collection Process......................................................................... 93

Figure 3.5. ISBM Value-Delivery Framework ........................................................ 97

Figure 3.6. Simplified depiction of Business Market Processes.............................. 97

Figure 3.7. Delphi process expert sampling strata................................................. 110

Figure 3.8. Modified 3-iteration Delphi method.................................................... 115

Figure 3.9. Timeline of the Delphic process from the final nomination process to the generation of the preliminary report .................................... 117

Figure 3.10. Example of the layout used in the third iteration to depict the Interquartile Range (shaded) and the median and the mode (underlined boxes) ......................................................................... 124

Figure 3.11. Description of primary post Delphi quantitative methods ................ 127

Figure 4.1. Basics of the modified hybrid-Delphi process .................................... 132

Figure 4.2. Second iteration instrument competency cluster changes ................... 134

Figure 4.3. Cluster Q components ......................................................................... 136

xvii

Fig. 4.4. Delphi panel composition at each of the three iterations......................... 138

Figure 4.5. Delphi panelists’ professional titles (practitioners)............................. 139

Figure 4.6. Delphi panelists’ professional titles (educators/researchers) .............. 140

Figure 4.7a. Distribution of the ratings from all the competencies by the by all panelists.......................................................................................... 142

Figure 4.7b. Distribution of the ratings from all the competencies by the Educators/Researchers ................................................................... 143

Figure 4.7c. Distribution of the ratings from all the competencies by the Practitioners ................................................................................... 144

Figure 4.8. Truly divergent competencies. ............................................................ 151

Figure 4.9. Controversial “core” competencies ..................................................... 153

Figure 4.10. Additional controversial competencies ............................................. 155

Figure 4.11. Distribution of the 24 controversial competencies among the 17 competency clusters ....................................................................... 156

Figure 4.12. “Kernel” competencies ordered by relative importance (as rated by the two expert groups) .............................................................. 160

Figure 4.13. Distribution of the 15 Kernel competencies among the 17 competency clusters ....................................................................... 161

Figure 4.14. Additional Kernel competencies (based on ratings by one of the expert groups) ................................................................................ 163

xviii

Figure 4.15. Tier 2 competencies ordered by relative importance (as rated by the two expert groups) ................................................................... 165

Figure 4.16a. Tier 3 competencies ordered by relative importance (as rated by the two expert groups) ................................................................... 169

Figure 4.16b. Tier 3 core competencies- Descriptions .......................................... 170

Figure 4.17a. Tier 4 competencies ordered by relative importance (as rated by the two expert groups) ................................................................... 173

Figure 4.17b. Tier 4 core competencies- Descriptions. ......................................... 174

Figure 4.18. Tier 5 competencies ordered by relative importance (as rated by the two expert groups) ................................................................... 176

Figure 4.19. Distribution data for “supplemental” competencies (unranked) ....... 178

Figure 4.20. Borderline competencies (as rated by the two expert groups) .......... 179

Figure 4.21. Supplemental competencies with high dispersion within the practitioners.................................................................................... 182

Figure 4.22. Supplemental competencies with high dispersion within the educators ........................................................................................ 184

Figure 4.23. Consensus levels for all 153 competencies and both expert panels at the end of iterations 2 and 3 ....................................................... 187

Figure 4.24. Summary of the de-construction process and break down of the 153 competencies identified through the modified Delphic process............................................................................................ 189

Figure 5.1 (with interactive links). Holistic perspective A: Emergent model ....... 193

xix

Figure 5.2. Emergent functional model (EFM) ..................................................... 198

Figure 5.3 (with interactive links). Holistic emergent perspective C: Emergent systems model................................................................................ 206

Figure 5.4 (with interactive links). Holistic perspective: Emergent model (EM) highlighting controversial core. ..................................................... 222

xx

List of tables

Table 2.1- Synopsis of the 1997 Executive Core Qualifications (ECQ) generated from the Leadership Effectiveness Framework study. ................................... 35

Table 4.1. Cronbach Alpha values for each cluster of the second iteration instrument ..................................................................................................... 132

Table 4.2. Delphi panelists’ years of experience in their field as recorded on the second iteration survey instrument ............................................................... 137

Table 4.3. Interrater Correlations for the Delphi panel................................................... 146

Table 4.4. Mann-Whitney U test comparing the ratings between the two groups and identifying the competencies for which inter-group consensus was not achieved ........................................................................................................ 148

xxi

List of abbreviations

ASTD : American Society for Training and Development

BC : Borderline Competency

B-to-B : Business-to-Business

CC : Core Competencies

CCC : Controversial Core Competencies

CM : Change Management

CR : Consensus Range

CSC : Controversial Supplemental Competencies

EFM : Emergent Functional Model

EM : Emergent Model

ESM : Emergent Systems Model

HR : Human Resources

HRD : Human Resource Development

HRM : Human Resource Management

HRP : Human Resource Planning

ICC : Intraclass Correlation Coefficient

IDP : Individual Development Plan

IQR : Interquartile Range

IRTD : Institute for Research in Training and Development

ISBM : Institute for the Study of Business Markets

xxii

KC : Kernel Competencies

NAICS: North American Industry Classification System

OD : Organization Development

PM : Performance Management

SC : Supplemental Competency

SKA : Skills, Knowledge and Attitudes

SP : Succession Planning

T&D : Training and Development

TDC : Truly Divergent Competencies

WFED : Workforce Education and Development

WLP : Workplace Learning and Development

xxiii

Preface

Three years ago, about two dozen member firms of the ISBM (Institute for the

Study of Business Markets) were polled and asked if:

(1) they had developed or were currently using a B-to-B marketing competency model (or

some form of skills inventory)

(2) in the event that they did have such an instrument, they were asked if they would be

willing to share it with the other member firms.

Over 80% of the respondents had not developed a competency model or skills inventory,

and among the very few who did, only ONE agreed to share it. Due to the high cost of

developing competency models, it is possible that if a corporation did invest in such a

venture, the results of the study would be treated as strategic information thus, would

not be published. Rothwell and Lindholm (1999) explained that “rigorous competency

models remain time-consuming and expensive to develop. It is not uncommon for a

competency study of all upper management positions in a large U.S. company to cost

between $1 million and $3 million”. They went on to explain that traditionally,

competency models had been built using retrospective studies focused on past critical

events but due to the dynamic nature of the world we live in, a future orientation was

warranted.

The purpose of this study was two-fold. First, it sought to develop and analyze a

systematic approach to building future-oriented competency models by refining and

adding rigor to a modified hybrid-Delphi methodology. The latter was then used to

identify the competencies that will define exceptional business-to-business market

managers over the next five years and synthesize a series of models based on these traits.

Even though the business-to-business market management occupation is present in

xxiv

various types of industries, it was assumed that there exists a core set of competencies

that is common to all exemplary performers in that occupation.

The business market management competency models were designed to address

various Management and Human Capital issues among which:

Performance management

Succession management and high potential identification

Competency-based workforce planning

Gap assessment

Training curriculum design

Recruitment and selection

Career pathing

Individual development planning

Coaching, counseling, mentoring, sponsoring

Various facets of “portable competencies”

Strategic HR planning at various levels

In order to be used effectively, the models should be customized to the

requirements of a specific firm or at least a specific industry. The model is meant to be

tailored to the needs of a specific environment: it should be aligned with the company’s

(or business unit’s) overall strategy taking into account the organization’s culture. If a

firm is already using some form of a skills inventory, integrating aspects of this model

should be easier. Depending on the environment, the customization can range from very

simple to very complex. For example, the model suggests that marketers work with sales

to align the marketing and sales strategies. If the relationship between the marketing and

the sales functions is dysfunctional, that aspect of the competency model may be very

xxv

difficult to implement (in such a case, what would be needed is no longer training but an

organization management intervention).

The customized competency model will provide the user with a map that

describes what people should "look" or "act" like at different levels1 and in different

roles2 within the market management function of a specific business unit, firm or

industry. Since the “behavioral anchors” (also called “behavioral indicators”) will vary

from company to company, it is imperative that the model be customized. In the early

stages of the study, a quick overview of the levels1 within the marketing function at a few

b2b firms showed that some organizations had 3 levels while others had more than 5. In

some environments, the market management function was spread2 amongst a large staff

of highly specialized individuals while in others; the work was being completed by a

handful of “generalists” who wore multiple hats. Creating a very detailed but generic

competency model that could be applied to every firm, in every industry under any

market conditions would have been a futile exercise.

This thesis follows a classic five chapter layout. The first chapter introduces the

research and its parameters. The second chapter covers the literature on three main

topics: business market management, competence and the Delphi technique. The third

chapter describes the methodology, data collection and subject selection. Chapter 4 goes

over the findings from the various analyses used to breakdown and explore the

competencies. The last chapter covers the synthesis of all the findings from the preceding

chapter into three emergent holistic models; suggestions for future research and a review

of the Delphi-hybrid are also offered.

1 vertical (ie. junior level … senior level)

2 horizontal (ie. Product managers, Brand managers, Marketing Research managers, Market

Communications managers …)

xxvi

The document includes various internal hyperlinks which are identified by text in

“blue bold font”. In addition, external links to the internet can be identified by their

“underlined blue bold font”. Once a link is clicked, the reader will be taken to the

link’s destination. If the link’s target is a large figure, the page size will automatically

change to allow you to view the entire figure. Depending on your screen size, the page

may become too small to read; in such a case, you may resize it to a dimension that suits

your needs. If you wish to navigate the document, please use the bookmarks, which

follow the same hierarchy as the table of contents.

This report depicts work that is still in progress. The study raises many issues

related to (1) the development of future-oriented emergent functional competency

models and (2) to the business market management occupation. Over the next few years,

the researcher hopes to further investigate these topics and will provide updates on the

study’s web portal (www.B2Bcompetencies.com). Your input and suggestions are

always welcomed (allen@CompetencyPlexus.com).

xxvii

Acknowledgements

I acknowledge intellectual debts to all the members of the Delphi panel who

invested their precious time into this research effort. In addition to the experts listed in

Appendix B, I would like to thank the dozens of practitioners and academics who

participated in the early phases of the study, this piece of research would not have been

possible without the input of the expert panels that preceded the modified Delphi.

I am grateful to Paul Krueger, Ph.D., Ed.D., a great mind and superb

methodologist, and the Institute for Research in Training and Development (IRTD) for

their invaluable assistance, support and counsel in the design and execution of the

methodology that was used in this study. I would like to thank Ralph Oliva, Ph.D., a key

B-to-B Market Management SME and supporter of this study, and the Institute for the

Study of Business Markets (ISBM) staff for providing the expertise and other resources

that made this endeavor possible. I am grateful to William Rothwell, Ph.D., a world-class

guru in Competency Modeling and everything HRD. Dr. Rothwell’s past and current

research on competency modeling provided the infrastructure on which the study was

built. I would like to express my thanks Mrs. Elaine Harris of Allied Signal/Honeywell

(at the time) for her great contributions from the project’s inception through its

completion and Mr. Ben Fisher of PPG Industries for sharing his insights in the early

phases of the study. I thank Judith Kolb, Ph.D. for the precious counsel she provided on

group dynamics.

I would also like to thank Monica Atkin, Frank Elliott, Gary Holler and Bob

Donath for contributing their valuable time, expertise and support to this research effort.

I also express my appreciation to Kenneth Gray, Ph.D. for his guidance in the genesis of

this research effort, for making this possible even before the project was clearly defined.

A special “thank you” goes to Peggy Stines-Munnings and Frances Racster; their support,

wisdom and inspiration made this endeavor possible.

Allen Stines, NYC, 2003

xxviii

Designing Market Strategy

Market Segmentation

Market Planning

Targeting

Sales Integration

Positioning/M nications arket commu

Channel Conflict Management

Market Offerings Management

New Offering Development

CREATING & HARVESTING VALUE

Value and Pricing

Positioning/ Market communications

Sales Integration

Targeting

Market Planning

Market Segmentation

DESIGNING MARKET STRATEGY

Business acumen

Marketing leadership

PERSONAL COMPETENCIES

Harnessing Value Data Management/ Market Research

UNDERSTANDING VALUE

B-to-B Market Management Emergent Functional Competency Model (EFM)

Chapter 1

Introduction

Fools make researches and wise men exploit them. H. G. Wells (1866-1946)

2

Introduction

In 1980, Patricia McLagan, one of the best-known American practical theorists in

Training and Development, predicted that “competence” would become an important

trend; the past two decades have supported her prediction. She introduced competency

models as a means of improving not only worker development, but also all facets of

Human Resource Management systems (McLagan, 1980, p.22).

As one can imagine, an organization’s success or failure can be directly related to

the quality of its workforce.

The most important elements in the quest for a competitive advantage in commerce, be it at the micro, or firm, level or at the macro, or national, level, are the skills and initiative of its workforce. Technology is only as good as the ingenuity of those who can both maintain and use it to the fullest potential (Gray & Herr, 1998, p. 44).

Over the past hundred years, industrialization and its machines have had a tremendous

impact on the way goods were manufactured but Thurow (1996) tells us that the

hallmark of the industrial revolution was the slow transition from an unskilled to a

skilled workforce (p.76). As we enter a new millennium, advances in technology are

again affecting the way business is conducted.

In an era of man-made brainpower industries, individual, corporate, and national economic success will all require both new and much more extensive skill sets than have been required in the past. By themselves skills don’t guarantee success. They have to be put together in successful organizations. But without skills there are no successful organizations (Thurow, 1996, p. 76).

Innovations in technology and the evolution of management-related strategic

techniques have set off the creation of complex tools that facilitate communications

across the board and allow workers to make better decisions in a fraction of the time it

3

would have taken otherwise. As technology continues to evolve, so will the tools; they

will become more sophisticated and more efficient. It is therefore imperative that the

worker of the future be able to effectively use them or businesses will suffer greatly.

Business-to-business market management (also known as business marketing

and formerly, industrial marketing) is an area of business that has greatly benefited from

such tools. The advent of data analysis software has allowed marketers to make better

predictions while reducing analysis time. Computers have allowed for the creation of

complex forecasting models and complicated schemes that help better understand the

needs of customers. As the tools continue to evolve, business marketers will have to keep

pace with these tools, techniques and underlying technologies; otherwise, their

competitors will “outskill” thus, outperform them.

A business marketing competency model would allow companies to manage most

aspects of their business marketing human resources needs including (but not limited

to):

Recruitment and selection Assessment Individual development planning Training curriculum design Coaching, counseling, mentoring, sponsoring Succession planning and high potential identification Career pathing (McLagan, 1980, p. 23).

If done correctly, such a model will facilitate the inventory and tracking of business

marketing competencies throughout a firm. It will help optimize the use of the

marketers’ skills and abilities; therefore increase efficiencies and impact the

organization’s bottom line.

“Worker competency”, the topic of this study, should not be confused with “core

competency”, which Prahalad and Hamel (1990) define as “the collective learning in the

organization, especially how to coordinate diverse production skills and integrate

4

multiple streams of technologies”. In the confines of this study, the B-to-B market

management competency model is described as a future-oriented descriptive paradigm

which depicts the key capabilities (knowledge, skills, attitudes and other traits) that will

define exemplary B-to-B market managers over the next five years. These capabilities are

not necessarily expected to be mastered by one individual, they may be scattered

throughout the market management function of a large corporation.

Statement of the problem

In 1986, Kastiel stated that the majority of graduate-level programs in marketing

tended to focus mostly on consumer marketing and ignored business-to-business

marketing. She claimed that many business-to-business marketers felt that the subject

should be taught as a separate discipline and that the graduates of marketing programs

did not have the skills needed to flourish in a business-to-business marketing

environment. She also complained that there were very few good textbooks and limited

research being done in business-to-business marketing. A recent review of the B-to-B

marketing education literature supports that Kastiel’s two-decade-old concerns may still

hold true. Fourteen years later, Mohr (2000) suggests that curricular changes in the area

of business-to-business marketing are recently occurring; unfortunately, he does not

support his statement with detailed factual information.

Even though the fundamental tenets of the profession remain the same, the tools

used by business-to-business marketers have evolved; consequently, the expected

performance of a business marketer is higher than ever.

5

B. Charles Ames noted in 1970 that marketing in the industrial world is a total business philosophy, based on improving performance by identifying the needs of each key customer group. The same is just as true today, but performance requirements have substantially toughened. […] Executives demand increasingly more accountability from their sales and marketing staff (Kay, 1999, p. 281).

Marketing has become a complex art where the winners are the artists who are able to

properly scan the landscape and interpret all its intricacies onto a canvas. Like artists,

successful marketers must be able to scan the market and develop its intricacies into a

value-adding model. Just as artists must be able to account for environmental factors

such as lighting variations, depth perception and color nuances, marketers must be able

to discern variations in the market, account for the customer’s perception of their

offering and understand the nuances in the needs of their customers.

Just as in art, it takes more than just technical knowledge to become an

exemplary marketer. A simple listing of tasks may not be able to depict an exemplary

performer. In order to fully grasp the essence of an exemplar, one would need a

competency inventory listing not only technical skills but also knowledge, traits, abilities,

attitudes and soft skills common to successful business marketers. A review of the

available, non-proprietary literature, suggests that such competency inventories have not

been developed for business marketers. Due to the high cost of developing competency

models, it is possible that if a corporation did invest in such a venture, the results of the

study would be treated as strategic information thus, would not be published. Rothwell

and Lindholm (1999) explained that

[…] rigorous competency models remain time-consuming and expensive to develop. It is not uncommon for a competency study of all upper management positions in a large U.S. company to cost between $1 million and $3 million. (p. 104)

6

Purpose of the study

This study attempts to contribute to the knowledge pool in two ways:

It seeks to contribute from a methodological standpoint by redefining and

adding rigor to a method that has been in use for over five decades.

It uses the strengthened method to develop a competency model for a dynamic

occupation that is still maturing.

This study sought to generate and critically analyze a concise and systematic

approach to future-oriented competency modeling based on a Delphi-hybrid

methodology. The next phase involved using the hybrid methodology and with the help

of the top business marketing experts, develop a model that will define exceptional

business-to-business marketers five years into the future. The data collected were

examined to discover if a gap exists between what the expert practitioners and educators

perceived to be the competencies that will define exceptional business marketers over

the next lustrum.

This Delphi study provides educators and trainers with information on the skills,

knowledge, attitudes and other attributes business marketers must possess in order to be

among the best at their job. The Institute for the Study of Business Markets (ISBM)

located at Penn State University, in University Park, Pennsylvania will use the outcomes

of this research to adjust their training programs by anticipating the future training

needs of their member firms.

This research provides business managers and human resource professionals

with a competency model for the business-to-business marketing occupation that can be

used to enhance all phases of human capital development: from recruitment and

7

selection to assessment and succession planning. Over the past two decades, competency

models have been developed for various occupations:

Rothwell and Sredl (1992) identified the competencies of Human Resource

Development (HRD) professionals for the American Society for Training &

Development (ASTD).

Goldstein (1995) told us that healthcare providers were developing competency

models to improve employee selection, development and succession planning.

Rothwell (1996) conducted research on the competencies of Human Resource

Management (HRM) professionals based on trends affecting the future of HRM (p.

293).

Pfohl (1997) reported on research that was conducted on logistical competencies

using surveys and interviews.

The American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM)

developed an inventory of competencies in 12 categories of occupational medicine

(Phillips, 1999).

Rifkin and Fineman (1999) conducted a study to “better understand the

characteristics of an effective technical manager”. The outcome of the research was a

competency model for technical managers.

Rothwell, Sanders and Soper (1999) developed a competency model of Workplace

Learning and Performance (WLP) professionals for the American Society for

Training & Development (ASTD).

The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) developed a

Competency Assessment Tool (CAT) to help its members identify their competence

8

gaps based on their career objectives (Waller, 1999; The CPA Journal, January 1998;

and Journal of Accountancy, February 1998).

Need for the study

A review of the literature did not discover any studies aimed at developing a

competency model for business marketers. The few efforts that have been undertaken to

develop a skills inventory for marketers focused on consumer marketing and they were

conducted using a job analysis approach to develop marketing curriculum (these studies

are discussed in chapter two). Since job analysis focuses on specific tasks, the results are

only valid as long as the tasks do not change. In this era of technological marvels, change

and innovation are continuously altering the way we do our jobs; therefore job duties

change as new technologies and processes are developed.

By focusing on the competencies of the worker, companies are able to develop

their plans and structure themselves so that they can change at the pace of innovation.

Theoretically, since competency-based systems focus on each worker’s abilities and

skills, they offer a modular approach to the fulfillment of a holistic endeavor; the

realization of organizational goals. Because of their modularity, these systems are more

tolerant to change and innovation.

Traditional competency models have been built on the critical incident technique,

which identified vital competencies based on past experiences of experts but Rothwell

and Lindholm (1999) tell us that

[…] competency models tend to be biased toward a past orientation. Examinations of exemplary performers have often focused on what they have done --with an emphasis on the past-- to address critical incidents

9

they face. But, as external environmental conditions change with increasing rapidity due to shifting customer preferences and a dynamic global marketplace, the need is intensified to move beyond examinations of exemplary performers under past conditions. A future orientation is needed. (p. 103)

This study strives to develop a competency model based on a heuristic, future-oriented

approach.

Objectives

To develop a systematic Delphi-hybrid methodology that can be used to develop

rigorous competency models.

To use quantitative measures to gauge the internal consistency of qualitative data

collected from expert practitioners and expert educators.

To develop a generic competency model for business marketers that can be used

across the various industrial classifications.

To identify and rate technical competencies and skills that will characterize the

ideal business marketer over the next five years.

To identify and rate attitudes, traits and other attributes that will characterize the

ideal business marketer over the next lustrum.

To analyze the level of consensus within the “practitioner” expert panelists

regarding the competencies that will be important in a business-to-business

marketer.

To analyze the level of consensus within the “educator” expert panelists regarding

the competencies that will be important in a business-to-business marketer.

10

To identify possible gaps that may exist between the expert practitioners and

expert educators on the perceived competencies that will define the ideal the

business-to-business marketer over the next lustrum.

To evaluate the use Delphi in building future-oriented competency models.

Delimitations and assumptions

The following factors established the parameters of this study:

The two sets of subjects (educators and practitioners) who participated in the

expert panels and the Delphi panel were selected with the assistance of at least

one of the directors of the Institute for the Study of Business Markets (ISBM).

None of the subjects involved in the study were remunerated.

The initial survey used in the first iteration of the modified Delphi was based on

future trends as determined by the literature and discussions with both

researchers and practitioners in the business-to-business marketing field during

three meetings of the Institute for the Study of Business Markets’ (ISBM)

Educators Consortium.

The study used a triangulation approach composed of both quantitative and

qualitative components. The qualitative portion of the study was based on an

amalgam of a naturalistic inquiry methodology and a pragmatic inductive

analysis methodology. The data collected during the quantitative portion of the

study were treated at the ordinal level.

An iterative three-round modified Delphi technique was used to draw up the final

list of competencies. Interaction between the two participant groups was only

11

allowed during the first iteration. The Delphi panel members were allowed to add

competencies to the first instrument as they saw fit. These suggestions were

shared with both groups during the second iteration. Only the competencies for

which consensus was not clearly reached during the second iteration were

resubmitted to a group to be rated in the third iteration.

Due to the size of the Delphi panel, it was not possible to stratify the sample to

include all the industry classifications. The study was conducted on the premise

that the competencies identified will be common to exemplary business market

managers and transcend industrial classifications. In order to have a sample

incorporating all the NAICS (North American Industry Classification System)

industry classifications, the sample would have had to include more than a

thousand subjects, making it beyond the scope of this endeavor.

Because of the nature of the research, the study took place in the “real world”,

where all subjects were susceptible to stimulus from their environment (the latter

could not be controlled).

The final product of this study is not intended to be the elixir that will cure all the

business marketing competency-related ills but will provide a glimpse of the next

five years to come. The results of this research should be used as a basis for future

research.

12

Limitations

This section provides an overview of the limitations of the study. These

limitations are discussed in more detail throughout chapter 3, where they are broken

down by category (methodological, sampling, etc).

This study attempts to predict 5 years into the future and limitations arise from

this fact. Since many of the innovations in business marketing are being driven directly

or indirectly by technology, any drastic changes in these technologies over the next five

years may affect the competencies needed by the marketers at that time.

Although the Delphi panel was carefully selected, certain factors such as personal

biases could not be controlled for. Unlike studies conducted in a laboratory with control

groups, all the subjects who participated in this piece of research were susceptible to

stimulus from a multitude of sources (business markets, work, and many other sources

of bias that are very difficult to control for or measure).

As with any form of research, this study is bound by inherent limitations. The

modified Delphi methodology used in this inquiry was experimental but thanks to the

dynamic nature of the data collection process and the iterative instrument that was used,

the methodology allowed for slight corrections as the study progressed. Many limitations

stem from the fact that qualitative studies rely on the researchers as the main instrument

and data processing tool. Even though researchers attempt to remain objective, due to

the nature of qualitative research, it is possible that biases may permeate. In a typical

qualitative study, data are collected from the subjects and analyzed by the researchers;

thereby leaving most of the interpretation and analysis in the hands of the investigators.

In the first iteration of this study, the data were collected, analyzed by the researcher and

13

the resulting analysis sent back to the subjects. During the second iteration, the

participants were asked to comment on the analysis. The feedback process was repeated

for a second time during the third iteration. The iterative consensus-building process

involved the subjects in the analysis of the data, thus counteracting some of the biases

that may have stemmed from the investigator’s analysis.

This study was conducted with the assistance of the Institute for the Study of

Business Markets (ISBM). Limitations arise from the fact that all the participants were

directly or indirectly related to the ISBM: selection bias may have affected the results. On

the other hand, the methodology does warrant selection bias. In order for the Delphi-

hybrid method to work properly, the participants must be experts in their field (Czinkota

& Ronkainen, 1997), among the best of the best; therefore, it was imperative that the

sampling process be purposive and very selective. Furthermore, due to the size of the

sample, it was not possible to stratify the Delphic panels such that they represented all

the industry classifications. The study was conducted under the assumption that the

competencies that define an exceptional business marketer transcend industry

classifications, company size and geography.

Definitions of terms

Business market management: “The process of understanding, creating,

delivering and profitably harvesting value from targeted business markets and

customers” (Adapted by Ralph Oliva from: Anderson & Narus, 1999, p.4).

Furthermore, business marketing differs from consumer marketing in the sense

14

that the targeted customers are businesses, organizations or governments as

opposed to individual consumers.

Business marketing: In the confines of this study, the term “business marketing”

will be used interchangeably with “business market management”.

Business-to-business marketing: In the confines of this study, the term

“business-to-business marketing” will be used interchangeably with “business

market management”.

Business-to-Business market management competency model: a future-oriented

descriptive paradigm which depicts the key capabilities (knowledge, skills, and

attitude) that will define exemplary B-to-B market managers over the next five

years.

Business markets: “firms, institutions, or governments that acquire goods and

services either for their own use, to incorporate into the products or services that

they produce, or for resale along with other products or services to other firms,

institutions, or governments”. (Anderson & Narus, 1999, p.4).

Business marketer: In the confines of this study, the term “business marketer”

will be used interchangeably with “business market manager”.

Business process: sequence of operations that creates value to the customer

(Oliva, 1999).

Competencies: “characteristics of the people doing the work -knowledge, skills,

and attitudes (also values, orientations, and commitments)” (McLagan, 1997).

Competency assessment: the process of identifying the competencies of

successful performers (Rothwell, 1996, p.263).

15

Competency cluster: group of competencies organized around a main theme or

the purpose (Mirabile, 1997, Spencer & Spencer, 1993).

Competency model: “decision tool that describes the key capabilities for

performing a specific job” (McLagan, 1996, p. 63), the results of a competency

study (Spencer & Spencer, 1993).

Delphi: “a group process which utilizes written responses as opposed to bringing

individuals together” (Delbecq et al, 1975, p. 83).

Delphic: relating to Delphi.

Industrial marketing: (see business marketing).

ISBM: Institute for the Study of Business Markets. The ISBM is a center of

excellence in the Smeal College of Business Administration at Penn State

University. Its mission is to improve the practice of business-to-business

marketing in industry, and to expand research and teaching in business-to-

business marketing in academia.

Conceptual framework overview

Infrastructure

The study was based on the works of many scholars in a variety of fields ranging

from human resources and development (HRD) to communications. The works of

Patricia McLagan (1980, 1996) in the areas of competency identification and competency

modeling provided the foundation on which the study was built; the operational

definitions of “competency” and “competency model” were taken from her more recent

articles. The works of William Rothwell (1992, 1996, 1998, 1999) and Lyle Spencer

16

(1993) on competency identification and competency model design were used to select

and design the study’s methodological infrastructure. McLagan, Rothwell and Spencer’s

works provided the groundwork on which this piece of research was erected. Their work

is discussed in more detail in the section on competence (chapter two).

Framework

The inductive methodology used in the study was based on a naturalistic inquiry

approach. Triangulation was used to design a hybrid Delphi methodology. Created by

Olaf Helmer and Norman Dalkey, the Delphi method was used in the 1950s as a

forecasting tool. The original method and a few of its variants that had been designed

over the past five decades were reviewed. In an effort to strengthen Delphi’s reliability

and increase academic rigor, the half-century-old method was coupled with systematic

qualitative and quantitative methods borrowed from various disciplines. For example,

the design of the Delphic instrument took into account empirical psychological research

conducted on short-term memory and information processing. The competencies were

clusters into manageable “chunks” (Dembo, 1991). The competency clusters were then

grouped and ordered to optimize the logical flow of information. The ordering and

grouping of the clusters was based on the ISBM’s value framework. The latter is at the

core of all the ISBM’s research and educational endeavors. Even the selection of the font

used in the Delphic instrument involved a bit of research. A more detailed look at the

methodology and the survey design is offered in the methodology section (chapter three)

and an overview of Delphi and its uses over the years is covered in the review of

literature (chapter two).

Literature searches revealed that very little had been written on business-to-

business marketing education or on business-to-business marketing competency models.

17

The very few models that were found had been created by large business-to-business

firms and were considered strategic and proprietary information; therefore, very few of

the ISBM member firms that had developed a “skills inventory” for their business

marketers were willing to share the information.

Superstructure

The data collected were used to build the competency model. The process involved

three iterations during which content analysis and self-administered survey techniques

were used. The iterative consensus building method yielded a series of competency

clusters organized around an adapted version of the ISBM’s value framework, which was

modified based on the expert participants’ inputs at the end of the first iteration. Non-

inferential non-parametric statistical approaches were used to analyze the data and

generate the resulting competency model.

Summary

This study sought to strengthen the Delphi methodology and use the enhanced

method to develop a competency model for business-to-business marketers, irrespective

of industry classification. Literature reviews suggested that very few studies had been

conducted to develop such a competency model. The latter can be used for a broad range

of purposes ranging from human capital development to strategic planning. The next

chapter will cover an overview of the literature in three main areas: marketing education,

competence and the Delphi method.

Chapter 2

Literature review

Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves, or we know where we can find information upon it. Samuel Johnson (1709-84

19

Introduction

This chapter will cover a review of the literature on three main themes. First,

marketing education will be examined from an industry perspective, then from

academia’s point of view. Secondly, the concept of competence will be reviewed. The

history, the uses and applications of competency models and the various approaches that

have been used to develop them will be investigated. Lastly, Delphi, the primary

methodology used in this study will be scrutinized.

Business-to-business marketing education

Few articles have been written on business-to-business marketing education. The

Journal of Marketing Education publishes articles that focus mostly on consumer

marketing education issues. The American Marketing Association conducts studies and

publishes various journals and magazines (Marketing News, Marketing Management,

Marketing Research, Marketing Health Services, Journal of Marketing, Journal of

Marketing Research, Journal of international Marketing, Journal of Public Policy &

Marketing and Marketing Educator) but the publications and research efforts seldom

focus on business-to-business marketing education.

20

From an industry perspective

In 1986, Kastiel complained that very little research was being conducted on

business-to-business marketing issues. He contended very few business-to-business

marketing textbooks were available and that companies had difficulties recruiting

competent business-to-business marketing professionals from marketing programs at

universities. A review of the literature published over the past five years showed that the

situation may not have changed.

What skill set do employers look for?

O’Brien and Deans (1995) looked at the needs of employers who hire marketing

professionals and concluded that although these companies seem to favor business

graduates, “they also consider there to be a requirement for task-specific training” (p.

13). Although the article did not focus on business-to-business marketing, some of the

issues identified and addressed in the article can be applied to business markets. For

example, they stated that, more often than not, marketers must be familiar with the

vernacular used in a specific industry; and it is not uncommon to find business-to-

business marketers with an engineering or natural sciences background (i.e. chemistry,

physics, biology).

Where do markers acquire marketing skills?

Many organizations have implemented corporate universities or offer internal

business marketing training programs to supplement business marketing education

services they receive from academic entities such as universities (e.g. Texas Instruments,

21

Honeywell, Agilent). Smart, Kelley and Conant (1999) claim that a Delphic study they

conducted showed that the level of competition between marketing departments in

academia and corporate universities would intensify in the future.

From an education perspective

Marketing education is still evolving. Hansen, Carlsson and Walden (1988) have

identified three phases in its evolution:

1. In its early development, marketing education was focused on theories and rules

of thumb based on past experiences.

2. Currently, marketing focuses on the use of algorithms and tools that allow for the

optimization of problem solving.

3. In the future, marketing education will be based more on the use of “marketing

management expert systems that can develop knowledge in a symbolic

representation”.

How practical should marketing education be?

In his 1997 article entitled “Marketing education is not marketing business”;

Rotfelt states that marketing educators and marketing practitioners are not the same

breed. He argues that marketing educators should have more in common with other

academicians than with marketing practitioners. He claims that the role of the marketing

educator is to think for a living and teach others how to think through their research and

writing. They should focus their teaching on educating their students on how to reason

and communicate instead of focusing on specific job training. On the other hand, O’Brien

22

and Deans (1995), who studied first-year marketing students, concluded that the pupils

are more interested in a graduating with practical skills and a wide knowledge base.

Contrary to Rotfelt’s viewpoint, Smart, Kelley and Conant’s 1999 study reported that

some marketing educators feel that academia should encourage faculty members to

interact more with industry. Institutions conferring doctoral degrees

(…) should require industry experience in marketing as a criterion for admission. Too many business professors have absolutely no idea what life will be like for the students they’re teaching once those students take jobs. For faculty with no experience, universities should provide time off for faculty to work for a semester-a sort of internship. This would redirect their teaching in ways that are relevant and rewarding to their students. (par. 29).

What should be taught?

Walker (1986) argued for an increase in marketing professionalism and contends

that it must start in the classroom. He offers two hypotheses to explain the lack of

professionalism in marketing. First, he suggests that the absence of a marketing body of

knowledge may have prevented the field from being recognized as a legitimate

profession. Secondly, he proposes that colleges are not preparing marketing

professionals properly. In the 1980s, a good number of articles featured in European

journals focused on marketing theory and the lack of its use in the education or training

of marketers (Saunders, 1980; Piercy, Evans & Malcom, 1982; and Hansen, Carlsson &

Walden, 1988). Saunders (1980) suggested that the over-adoption of American style

management education and over-specialization of the marketing field by marketing

educators were two of the four reasons explaining the “degeneration of marketing

education” in the United Kingdom.

23

The marketing theory issue is not new. In the 1950s and early 1960, Alderson

coauthored various books on marketing theory (Alexander, Surface, Elder & Alderson;

1940; Cox & Alderson, 1950; Alderson, 1957, Alderson, 1965; and Alderson & Halbert,

1968); he complained that the theory base of marketing was too thin and that economics

should not be the sole basis for marketing theory. He offered “group behavioralism” as a

new foundation of marking (Dixon, 1999).

Piercy, Evans and Martin (1982) surveyed 22 curriculum directors in the UK to

look at the content of the courses that were being offered in marketing. Their research

identified a lack of marketing theory in these curricula. Howard and Ryans (1993)

conducted an international survey of 129 marketing educators to compare the use of

marketing theory in marketing education at the undergraduate and graduate level. They

found that European and Pacific Rim educators placed a higher level of importance on

the use of marketing theories in the classroom than their American counterparts. The

authors suggest that marketing theory can help students better understand marketing.

Instead of simply teaching them how to market, they can be instilled with a better

understanding of how and why markets function the way they do. The latter is in

agreement with Rotfeld (1997) and Saunders (1980) who argue that the best way to teach

is not to replicate the marketing world in the classroom by teaching students job skills,

but to train them to think and seek solutions so that they are able to adapt to the ever-

changing markets.

24

The past decade and the next 10 years

Smart, Kelley and Conant (1999) conducted a study to look into the past decade

and the next ten years of marketing education. Three hundred and ten marketing

department heads from American colleges and universities located through the “1996

American Marketing Association international member and marketing services guide”

were contacted and asked to nominate their two most effective instructors. The

department heads were asked to choose the instructors based on student evaluations,

personal observations and other resources. Out of 620 potential responses, a total of 107

marketing faculty members returned valid surveys leading to a 17% response rate. A total

of 90 schools were represented in the sample. The responses were analyzed using a

multistep process involving two marketing educators. First, the investigators went over

the responses separately and identified the main themes. Next, they met to discuss their

categorization differences. The researchers compared the respondents and non-

respondents in terms of geography and size of the marketing departments to ascertain

whether or not non-respondent bias existed. They concluded that there were no

significant differences between respondents and non-respondents. Overall, many of their

findings correlated with a Delphic study they conducted a few years earlier. These

findings are described in the next two sections.

The past 10 years of marketing education

The respondents who had been teaching for more than a decade were asked to

describe the changes they had experienced over the past 10 years in marketing

education. Interestingly, the number of respondents who suggested that marketing

25

education standards had been lowered equaled those who advocated that the standards

had risen. The researchers clustered the responses into six main categories. Overall, the

distribution of comments on changes in marketing education over the past decade was

the following:

29% of the responses addressed issues related to changes in instructors and the

professorial role. One of the respondents commented that the role of a marketing

professor had evolved to become “part parent, part entertainer and part

consultant”.

26% of the responses collected focused on “class style” and the teaching methods

used to disseminate marketing knowledge.

14% of the responses were related to the use of technology in the classroom and

the impact of technology on teaching practices.

13% of the responses pertained to students and changes in the student

population. One of the prevailing comments in that category was that marketing

students were no longer interested in theory and that everything discussed in

class must be directly applicable in a business setting.

10% of the responses involved skills development. Over the past 10 years, there

seems to have been a shift in the skills being fostered in the classroom. The

faculty members were putting a big emphasis on the development of the

following skills: writing, speaking, presentation, decision-making, creative-

thinking abilities and problem-solving.

8% of the responses centered on the magnitude of change itself.

26

Looking into the next 10 years

All the survey respondents were asked to answer the following open-ended

question: “What are the greatest challenges that marketing education faces in the next 10

years?” A total of 167 comments were collected from 99 respondents. The responses were

grouped into five broad categories. By and large, the distribution of responses on

changes in marketing education that are expected to occur over the next decade was the

following:

38% of the responses focused on the marketing discipline itself. Most of the

respondents emphasized the need to portray the marketing discipline in a new

light: as a profession with its own distinct set of skills that are crucial to the

success of a business. They want to concentrate on strengthening marketing’s

academic standing while satisfying the needs of their customers, that is the

students and their employers.

27% of the comments addressed technology and the challenges associated with

keeping pace with the ever-shrinking life cycles. The comments also covered the

increased use of technology to disseminate marketing knowledge. Many

educators foresee a struggle to find balance between new teaching methods (i.e.

web-based) and traditional delivery methods (i.e. person-to-person real-time in-

class interaction).

17% of the responses pertained to the student population. Some respondents

predicted an increase in the number of non-traditional students.

12% of the submissions involved administrative issues and the pressures facing

marketing professors who seem to increasingly have less to work with while they

are expected to do more.

27

6% of the responses focused on the instructors who found it difficult to attain a

balance between their research, teaching and other responsibilities.

Overall, Smart et al. suggested that some main themes regarding the marketing

discipline surfaced in the study. They concluded that marketing faculty should listen

more to the needs of their stakeholders, namely their students and the companies that

hire them; and recommend that the following questions be asked of students and their

employers:

1. What subject areas are of increasing importance to you?

2. What skills and competencies must graduates possess to be successful?

3. How can we as marketing educators increase the relevancy and value of a

marketing degree? (par. 42)

Smart et al. claim that one of the weaknesses of marketing education is its failure to

respond swiftly enough to changes in both the business and educational environments.

They reference Ferrel’s 1990 article on improving marketing education. Ferrel predicted

a closer relation between marketing practice and marketing education in the future.

Competence

A review of the literature showed that there is not a universal definition for the

words: “competence”, “competency”, “competency model" and “skill”. These words have

been widely used in various circles and their meaning has varied depending on the

context. While going over this segment of the literature review, it is important that the

reader keeps in mind that there are subtle differences in the meaning of these words to

the various authors who are cited. Many of the articles reviewed were written by

28

established experts in the field (both in the United States and abroad), but occasionally,

“competency” and “skill” are used interchangeably even after the author had

painstakingly established differences between the two words.

Krohe (1997) tells us that a poll of 1,700 human resources professionals by Aon

Consulting and the Society for Human Resource Management reported that competency

models were being used in one form or another by one out of four of the organizations.

The most common use of these models was primarily staff development and secondarily

employee selection at the management level.

A survey of 217 companies by the American Compensation Association, in

cooperation with Hay Group, Hewitt Associates LLC, Towers Perrin, and William M.

Mercer Inc. (Frazee, 1996; Levine, 1997; and Jones, 1997) found that:

88% of the companies using competencies for staffing also used competency-based

interviews for hiring and selection purposes.

62% of the companies using competencies for Training and Development also used

training programs specially designed around worker competencies.

90% of the companies using competencies for performance management also used

competency-based performance appraisal data for employee development.

64% of the companies using competencies as a basis for compensation reported that

pay increases were affected most by change/growth in competencies.

An historical synopsis

In the early 1970s, McClelland, worked with the US State Department to improve

their selection process for junior Foreign Service Information Officers (McClelland,

29

1993). While working on the project, McClelland and his colleagues at McBer and

Company devised the idea of the Behavioral Event Interview. In 1973, McClelland

suggested that intelligence testing may not be an adequate indicator of one’s ability to

successfully perform one’s job. He identified “competence” (a concept that had been

popularized by White (1953) two decades earlier) as a better way of predicting job

success on the basis that the assessment tools that were being used in research and

academia were inappropriate predictors of job success and biased against minorities,

women and underprivileged individuals. Working with the American Management

Association, McClelland launched the first large competency identification effort in the

late 1970s to pinpoint the characteristics that separate average performers from super

performers.

Prior to McClelland’s work, Flanagan (1954) had done some work for the United

States military on isolating the characteristics that were critical to the successful

completion of job duties and the attributes that seem to make a difference between

success or failure. Sanchez (2000) noted that authors should recognize the contributions

of Fine, Fleishman, McCormick and Primoff whose studies on the identification of work

behaviors and attributes also preceded McClelland’s.

In 1980, McLagan developed the concept of “competency models” and defined

them as “decision tools which described the key capabilities required to perform a job”

(p. 23). These tools were defined as a set of knowledge, skills, attitudes or intellectual

strategies (p.24). She went on to write,

At their best, competency models can be more reliable than job descriptions (which talk about job not skill and knowledge specifications), more succinct and valid than detailed skill lists, and more consistently on target than “gut feel” (p.23).

30

She foresaw the integration of competency models into organizational life as a major

trend in the future of human resource development, but warns that in order to be

effective, the implementation of competency-based strategies must be supported by

upper-management (p.26).

In 1982, Boyatzis wrote “the first empirically-based and fully-researched book on

competency model development” (Rothwell & Lindholm, 1999, p. 93) and identified

Behavioral Event Interviews (BEI) as a key tool in competency model development. A

BEI involves a thorough interview of an incumbent worker during which critical

incidents are recalled and documented in detail. Boyatzis defined a competency as “an

underlying characteristic of a person which results in effective and/or superior

performance in a job” (p. 21). He went on to define that characteristic as a motive, a skill,

knowledge, one’s self image or social role.

In 1993, Lyle and Signe Spencer offered practitioners a systematic way of

developing competency models through the use of Behavioral Event Interviews (BEI),

expert panels, surveys, computer based “expert” systems, job task/function analysis and

direct observation. The Spencer and Spencer book was based on the McClelland/McBer

job competence assessment methodology and provided insights on multiple aspects of

building and understanding competency models. According to the authors, the book

summarized the findings from 286 studies and 20 years of research at McBer and

Company (from the early 1970’s until 1991).

In 1997, McLagan reviewed the concept of competence and defined six main

types of competencies: task competencies, result competencies, output competencies,

knowledge, skills, and attitude competencies and super-performer differentiators. She

31

also identified “attribute bundles”, which she defined as combinations or hybrids of the

five types of competencies.

In 1990, Prahalad and Hamel took the notion of a competency to a larger scale.

They described the concept of an “organizational” competency labeled “core

competency” as a process, technology or an organizational ability that is difficult to

imitate, adds or creates customer value and allows access to a variety of markets.

Using competency models to prepare for the future

Nowadays, thanks to constant technological innovations, jobs functions are more

prone to change than ever before. In her 1980 article, McLagan considered competency

models to be “decision tools for use in a future time frame” (p. 24). She suggested finding

successful performers and creating a model based on “what they do” (p. 24) but warns

that the approach does not work well when the environment will undergo change. If

change is expected, she recommends taking a “strategic and futuristic perspective on the

job -looking at corporate and unit strategy, structure, future tasks and relationships,

what experts are saying about the future, etc.” (p. 24) but does not provide or

recommend any particular methodology. Rothwell and Lindholm (1999) wrote that

competency models tend to concentrate on the past. Since most competency models are

built using tools such as Critical Event Interviews, they focus on difficulties exemplary

workers had to face in an earlier period.

But, as external environmental conditions change with increasing rapidity due to shifting customer preferences and a dynamic global marketplace, the need is intensified to move beyond examinations of exemplary performers under past conditions. A future orientation is needed. (p. 103)

32

Some experts do not see time as a threat to the validity of a well designed competency

model. During an interview with Yeung (1996), Boyatzis stated that even though the

relative importance of individual competencies may change in the future, an

occupation’s fundamental competence would not vary.

Applications of competency models

Antonacopoulou and FitzGerald (1996) warned

The requirement for a rapid response to change, accompanied by increasing cost-consciousness and the realisation of the need to develop managers, has forced organisations to seek quick fixes to long term problems. As a result, many organisations rushed to subscribe to the 'new' catch phrase of 'competency' (…) The enthusiasm of organisations to adopt a competency framework, has led to its employment for a plethora of uses and purposes often without critically assessing the wider implications.

Back in 1980, McLagan identified a set of possible uses for competency models:

Recruitment and selection

Assessment

Individual development planning

Training curriculum design

Individual career planning

Coaching, counseling, mentoring, sponsoring

Succession planning and high potential identification

Career pathing

A review of the literature supports that the uses identified by McLagan have not

changed very much over the past two decades. Recent literature identified only a few

new uses of competency models, most of them fueled by technology.

33

Thirteen years after McLagan’s article, Spencer and Spencer (1993) identified very

similar uses for competency models: assessment and job-person matching for

recruiting, placement, retention and promotion; succession planning; development and

career pathing. In addition, the following uses were identified as applications of

competency models:

Performance management

Competency-based pay

Integrated human resource management information systems

Competency-based workforce planning.

Six years after Spencer and Spencer’s book, Rothwell and Lindholm (1999) suggested

that competencies could also be used to deal with multicultural matters and various

strategic issues. They predicted that competency-based Human Resource Management

(HRM) systems will become “the keystone in the bridge between individual career

development and organizational strategy” (p. 101). They described the concept of

“portable competencies” which makes it possible for individual workers to move

throughout the firm, to areas or projects where their competencies are most valuable.

The following sections will cover the seven main applications of competency models

identified in the literature.

Recruitment and selection

In the early 1990s, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management conducted a massive

competency modeling effort involving 20,664 supervisors, managers and executives in

the U.S. Federal government. This study, the largest of its kind to be undertaken, gave

birth in 1997 to the Executive Core Qualifications (ECQs), a set of 22 competencies

34

spread across 4 main categories (United States Office of Personnel Management, 1999;

U.S. Army, 1999). The ECQs are currently used to select candidates for the Senior

Executive Service (SES). A synopsis of the ECQs is listed in table 2.1.

In the early 1970’s, McClelland (1993) used competence identification to select

junior Foreign Service Information Officers for the US State Department. Spencer and

Spencer (1993) identify selection as one of the main uses of competency modeling at

Hay/McBer.

Gap assessment

The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) uses a

competency model to help its members assess their competencies (Waller, 1999). The

institute developed a Competency Assessment Tool (CAT) based on 40 competencies

distributed across 4 categories. After the user enters data, the software determines the

gap between the competencies the user currently possesses and the ideal set of

competencies for a professional in her or his area.

Succession management

According to Byham (1999), research completed by Development Dimensions

International (DDI) shows that over the next five years, a considerable number of

organizations especially large, older ones will loose about 40 percent of their executives.

Byham suggests setting up competency model as the first step to succession

management. He explains the difference between succession planning and succession

management:

35

Basic Competencies Needed by All Professionals

Decisiveness Flexibility Interpersonal Skills

Leadership Oral Communication Problem Solving

Self-Direction Technical Competence Written Communication

Additional First-Level Competencies Needed by Supervisors

Conflict Management Human Resources

Management Influencing/Negotiating

Managing Diverse

Workforce Team Building

Additional Mid-Level Competencies Needed by Managers

Creative Thinking Customer Orientation Financial Management

Management

Controls/Integrity Planning and Evaluating Technology Management

Additional Higher-Level Competencies Needed by Executives

External Awareness Vision

Table 2.1- Synopsis of the 1997 Executive Core Qualifications (ECQ) generated from the Leadership Effectiveness Framework study. Generated from U.S. Army (1999, December 17). CP-14 - Appendix M: Leadership effectiveness framework. [On-Line]. Available: http:\\www.cpol.army.mil/train/acteds/CP_14/appm.html.

36

(…) succession planning focuses on identifying an individual for a specific job, succession management focuses on creating and stocking pools of candidates with high leadership potential.

Byham sees competencies as tools that could be used to single out and develop future

leaders

Strategic planning

Strategic planning is a critical part of business and competency models can help

align a company’s workforce to its overall strategy. McDowell (1996) identified four steps

to avoiding a misalignment between an organization’s employees and its business

strategy:

1. Encourage strategic business partnering with key players

2. Develop a strategic workforce competency model.

3. Develop a strategic curriculum.

4. Implement a strategic competency model and strategic curriculum to guide

training and development efforts.

Rothwell and Lindholm (1999) also predict that competency models will be the nexus

that ties individual career development and organizational strategy.

Portable competencies and career planning

Nowadays, companies are less stratified then they were a few decades ago. With

the depletion of middle management, and under the pressures of early retirements,

downsizing and reengineering, the traditional organizational hierarchy has flattened.

Corporate hierarchies with loose boundaries, also called “boundaryless hierarchies”

(Ashkenas, Ulrich, Jick & Kerr, 1995) have competencies spread out through the

37

organization (Rothwell & Lindholm, 1999). With these new organizational structures,

workers are not only moving up the organizational ladder, but they are also experiencing

lateral movements. Ashkenas et al. tell us “regardless of title or position, when an

individual has the skill to do a job, he or she is encouraged to pitch in and do it” (p. 45).

Competency modeling makes it possible to identify and keep track of the competencies of

individual employees through a database (Spencer & Spencer, 1993).

By keeping track of worker competencies, it is then possible to put teams together

on the fly based on the competencies that will be needed for a specific project. By using

databases, it is also possible to keep track of workers’ competencies has they move

through the organization, jumping from one team to the next and acquiring new

competencies.

Competency-based management (CBM)

According to Greengard (1999), competency-based management (CBM) can offer

enormous organizational gains.

CBM is a core strategy for understanding what’s really going on within the enterprise. By condensing core competencies from a web of roles, goals, skills and knowledge that determine an employee’s effectiveness, it’s relatively easy to view a snapshot of where employees- and the organization- are in the ongoing quest for success.

CBM uses software to manage the competency inventories and keep track of each

worker’s accomplishments; and that makes the concept of “portable competencies”

possible. Greengard suggests that CBM can also be used to support competency-based

compensation plans.

38

Compensation

In his article titled “Competencies: A poor foundation for the new pay”, Lawler

(1996) argues that not all organizational infrastructures are appropriate for person-

based pay (also called skills-based pay). He observed that companies are gradually

looking at competency models as a “foundation for determining pay in person-based pay

systems”. He forecasts that in the next decade, most organizations will phase out job-

based compensation in favor of person-based pay systems simply because it makes more

sense to pay more competent workers better than the less competent ones. The biggest

challenge will be to devise a means to measure competence. Lawler admits: “I don’t

know about you, but I find all this very confusing -- perhaps an exercise in semantic

obfuscation. At times, it sounds as if competencies are actually nothing more than skills

or knowledge”. He stated that past research has supported that person-based pay seems

to work particularly well in team-based environments where individuals must acquire

several skills and that most individuals prefer person-based pay to job-based pay

because they are in control of their salary: their pay becomes a function of their

competencies and performance on the job. When person-based pay systems are first put

in place, they provide a good motivation for employees to improve their skills and these

systems reach their apogee (in terms of performance improvement) during the first years

of implementation. It has also been found that these systems tend to be more successful

when coupled with pay-for-performance systems that reward team or group

performance. Such systems are even more effective when they are designed with the

input of the employees they will affect. On the other hand, Lawler acknowledges that

person-based pay systems are not easy to implement. He warns that these systems are

very complex and difficult to design without a thorough understanding of the

39

organization; and because of their complexity, they are expensive to maintain and

manage. Furthermore, the organization must establish reliable and valid methods of

measuring a worker’s abilities and these abilities must be related directly or indirectly to

the organization’s strategic goals; otherwise, the effort will be fruitless.

Approaches to competency identification

Even though many books and articles have been written on the concept of

“competency” and on competency modeling, few authors have provided a step-by-step

approach to the identification of competencies and the design of competency models.

Spencer and Spencer’s (1993) “Competence at Work” is one of the foremost research-

based books on competencies and it distinguishes six main avenues of identifying

competencies:

1. Behavioral Event Interviews

2. Expert panels

3. Surveys

4. Computer based expert systems

5. Job/task function analysis

6. Direct observations

In “The Competency Toolkit”, a how-to book for practitioners new to competency

modeling, Dubois and Rothwell (2000) revisit three of the methods identified by

Spencer and Spencer (Behavioral Event Interviews, surveys and job observation) and

describe additional approaches that have been used to identify competencies:

7. Tailoring or adopting an outside expert model

40

8. Using a generic or existing competency list

9. Using a competency inventory

10. Focus group

11. Card sort

12. Guessing

Spencer and Spencer (1993) and Dubois and Rothwell (2000) cover most of the methods

described in the literature. Although many of the methods have been called by different

names, the twelve methods identified previously provide a holistic view of the

competency identification methods in the literature. Furthermore, Rothwell and

Lindholm (1999) and Rothwell and Kazanas (1998) classify competency identification

and modeling methods into three general categories:

I. The borrowed approach

II. The borrowed-and-tailored approach

III. The tailored approach.

Rothwell further subdivides the tailored approach into the following methods: process-

driven method, outputs-driven method, invented method, trends-driven method and

work responsibilities-driven method. Rothwell’s 3-tier classification provides an ideal

means to catalog the different methods that could be or have been used in competency

identification. The following sections covering the 3-tier classification will provide an

overview of the various competency identification and competency modeling approaches

identified by Spencer and Spencer (1993) and Dubois and Rothwell (2000).

41

I.- The borrowed approach

The borrowed approach is the least rigorous of the methodologies and also the

least costly. It simply requires the identification of a competency model that was

developed for a group of individuals that is somewhat similar to the group for whom a

competency model is needed. Generic full-circle multi-rater assessment instruments that

are purchased from training and assessment material clearinghouses and that are not

custom-tailored to the needs of a specific organization fall under this approach.

Competency lists found in books, articles and other media also fall into this category.

Main advantages of the borrowed approach

1) Easy to implement. There is no need to identify super performers, to develop

a methodology or to identify the competencies. The only investigation that

needs to be undertaken involves searching for and researching competency

models that have been developed for a similar group of individuals.

2) Least expensive method. Building a competency model from scratch can be

very expensive. A competency study of just the upper-level management

positions in a large US company can cost anywhere between $1,000,000 and

$3,000,000 (Rothwell & Lindholm, 1999) and take anywhere from a few

months to years (McLagan, 1997). The borrowed approach allows the bypass

of the costly competency identification process. The main cost involved with

this method is usually the expense associated with the acquisition of the

model.

42

3) Rapid results. Depending on the project and the number of people involved,

competency studies can be very time consuming. Since there is no time used

to identify or develop the model, once the latter has been identified, it can be

put to use.

4) Credibility. If the competency model was developed for or has been used by a

renowned or successful organization (even though it has not been tailored to

the organization that has “borrowed” it) there will be a certain level of

credibility associated to the model. Dubois and Rothwell (2000) label that

phenomenon as “coat-tails credibility”.

Main disadvantages of the borrowed approach

1. Unknown suitability. Since the competency model is generic and has not been

tailored, there is no assurance that all or any of the competencies identified

will describe an above average performer in the organization using the model.

Even if the competencies are correct, the behavioral descriptors associated to

the competencies may not fit a particular organization’s vernacular or culture.

2. Least rigorous approach. If a competency model is borrowed from an external

source, its quality may be questionable: there may be concerns associated to

the validity or suitability of the model. Many off the shelf full-circle multi-

rater assessment instruments do provide some information on the genesis of

the model but it may be very difficult to ascertain the veracity of the

information.

3. Copyrights issues. A competency model should never be “borrowed” without

the owner’s permission (whether the latter is an individual or an

43

organization). Since they can be very costly to design and develop, the owners

of these models, whether they are entities or individuals, may be very

reluctant to grant permission to use them.

4. Low level of legal defensibility. One should be very careful before using

competency models derived from the borrowed approach for selection,

promotion or termination. It will be very difficult to argue a case in court

should an employee choose to litigate. These models are of limited use and

should only be utilized for training and individual development.

II.- The tailored approach

The tailored approach is the most rigorous of the methodologies. It involves

building a competency model from scratch and tailoring it to the needs of a specific

group of people or organizational environment. Three different methods can be used or

combined to create a tailored competency model: process-driven methodology, outputs-

driven methodology and trends-driven methodology.

A.- Process-driven methodology

The process-driven methodology is the oldest means of identifying competencies

and constructing competency models. Popularized by McBer and Company, this

methodology puts a big emphasis on the work process of super performers (Spencer and

Spencer, 1993). The work duties, tasks performed and responsibilities of exemplary

performers are analyzed and compared to those of average performers. The traits unique

to the super performer are isolated and the resulting set of competencies is validated. A

44

process-driven study can involve methods such as Behavioral Event Interviews, focus

groups or job observations of incumbent workers.

B.- Outputs-driven methodology

The outputs-driven methodology has been around since McLagan wrote her 1980

article on competency models. She identified competencies as knowledge, skills,

attitudes or intellectual strategies. McLagan also focused on the above average

performers and put a big emphasis on isolating the competencies that are crucial to

getting the job done well. She warned that since competency models are to be used to

prepare for the future, the outputs should be considered by making assumptions about

the future. If the job requirements will change, she suggested that the model be adjusted

to reflect the change by taking into consideration future duties, tasks and relationships

while accounting for corporate and unit strategic plans. An outputs-driven study can

involve methods such as: job analyses, focus groups or expert panels.

C.- Trends-driven methodology

A trends-driven methodology puts a great focus on the trends that will impact a

group of individuals, an occupation or an organization and can particularly be useful in

times of turbulence. The methodology is future-oriented and requires a thorough look at

the trends and issues before the beginning of a competency identification effort. A

somewhat similar approach is mentioned in Rothwell, Prescott and Taylor’s (1998) book

on preparing Human Resources for future trends organizations.

Although Rothwell and Lindholm (1999) call for such an approach, review of the

literature revealed that not much has been published on this methodology with regards

45

to building competency models. In the American Society for Training and Development’s

(ASTD) book on models for workplace learning and performance, Rothwell, Sanders and

Soper (1999) write:

The challenge (…) is in assessing the skills and knowledge that (…) practitioners will need in an unpredictable future (.…) Competency assessment methods must become more future focused and anticipate the characteristics necessary for high performance amid changing environmental conditions. (p. 21)

Competency modeling methods

The preceding methodologies involve the use of various approaches to identify

competencies and develop competency models. Although some of these methods are

more rigorous than others, in the end, the quality, validity and reliability of the model

will depend strongly on how the study was conducted by the investigator. If properly

conducted, the more rigorous methods (e.g. Behavioral Event Interviews) are defensible

in court and can be used for a gamut of applications ranging anywhere from recruitment

and selection, gap assessment, succession management, strategic planning, portable

competencies, career planning and competency-based management (CBM).

Compensation is the most perilous application because of the possibility of litigation;

therefore, studies conducted for the purpose of developing competency-based

compensation must be exceedingly rigorous and the methodology/methods used to

develop such a model must be defensible in court.

Very few organizational competency studies have been published. Because of their

cost and potential strategic value, companies are very reluctant to share their models

with the rest of the world. Most of the competency models discovered through a

46

literature review conducted by the researcher in 2000 had been generated by academic

institutions, governmental agencies or professional associations. Many doctoral

dissertations have been written on studies to identify competency models for various

occupations and data have been collected using various methods; the most common are:

A. Critical Incident-based methods

B. Expert panels/focus groups

C. Survey methods

D. Computer based methods

E. Card-sort generated model

F. Direct observations

G. Job/task analysis

H. The “invented” method

A.- Critical Incident-based methods

The most famous types of interview-based approaches for developing competency

models are the Behavioral Event Interview (BEI) and the Critical Incident Technique-

based (CIT) interview. BEIs have been around for more than three decades and involve

interviewing exemplary and average performers using a technique developed by

McClelland (1973) to identify the competencies that differentiate super performers from

average workers. BEIs involve the “thematic apperception test” which theoretically

provides the interviewer with a glimpse of the interviewee’s personality and cognitive

style. It should be mentioned that BEIs came out of the Critical Incident Technique, a

term coined by Fanagan (1954) while working for the United States Army on projects

aimed at improving worker performance through job analysis. In Critical Incident

47

interviews, the interviewee is asked to recall and describe critical occurrences associated

with accomplishing a job task. The method is thoroughly described in Spencer and

Spencer (1993, p. 114-134). BEIs and the CIT have been used extensively in competency

identification and competency modeling studies.

Daniel (1990) used the Critical Incident technique to isolate the critical

leadership competencies common to high performing manufacturing supervisors. A

sample of 9 super performers and 9 randomly selected supervisors were interviewed

using the Critical Incident Technique (CIT) and the competencies were identified

through the thematic analysis of the interviews. The latter identified 13 competencies

that differentiated the exemplars from the average workers. The results were validated

using a survey instrument that was completed by 38 supervisors: 15 super performers

and 23 randomly selected participants, the incumbents’ immediate managers and 3 to 6

of the incumbents’ direct reports. In a similar study, Brown (1987) looked at the

differences between managers and leaders and attempted to isolate the competencies

that define transformational leaders. Two groups of incumbent workers from a Fortune

500 company were interviewed: super performers and average workers. The results of

the interviews were analyzed to identify the behaviors, skills and motives that

differentiate super performers from average workers.

Smith (1990) used BEIs in a study to identify physician managerial competencies

by researching: critical skills, current level of physician managerial skill development,

gaps between job demand and skill level; and whether critical skills varied based on

managerial level or the health care setting. The participants were physician managers

holding mid- to upper-level executive positions in healthcare settings. Various methods

were used in the study: a modified version of the BEI, the “Executive Skills Profile” and a

48

“Q-sort instrument”. The “Executive Skills Profile” was used to rate 4 major skill areas:

interpersonal, action, information management and analytical. The study identified 15

job priorities that differentiated Department Directors from Medical Director level

physician executives. The health care setting was not found to have an important impact

on job priorities.

Katz (1996) identified the competencies that define a medical illustrator using the

McBer & Company’s Behavioral Event Interview technique and their Job Competence

Assessment (JCA) method. Focus groups composed of practitioners, employers and

clients were used to establish the criteria for the identification of outstanding

performers. BEIs were used to identify critical incidents using 10 freelancers, 10

institutional illustrators and 10 novices. The BEIs identified 15 critical competencies and

the results of the interviews were compiled into a competencies dictionary. The latter

was rated and validated by two expert panels using a questionnaire instrument.

Advantages of Critical Incident-based methods:

1) High face validity.

2) High predictive ability.

3) Identification of algorithms involved in accomplishing a particular task. BEIs

allow the interviewer to identify not only the competencies but also the different

steps taken and the order in which they are accomplished.

4) Free from racial, gender and cultural bias. McClelland (1973; 1993) claims that

BEIs are not biased against minorities.

49

Disadvantages of Critical Incident-based methods:

1) Very time consuming. BEIs require the extensive interviewing of workers and

typical projects usually require a minimum of 6 months to complete (Dubois &

Rothwell, 2000).

2) Expertise requirement. Since the method is complex, interviewers must be

trained to use the method, conduct the interviews and analyze the data. If more

than one interviewer is being used, they must be “calibrated” to make sure that

they are working in unison.

3) Very expensive. Studies using BEIs are very expensive to conduct. The

interviewers must thoroughly interview the incumbent workers. One must

therefore take into account not only the time of the interviewer but also lost

wages, lost productivity from the exemplary workers, transcriptions costs and

other expenses.

4) Unidentified job tasks. Since the method focuses on critical incidents, it may

miss the less important aspects of a job.

5) Past-oriented. Since BEIs use critical incidents to generate the competencies,

they should not be used when an organization, a business unit or an occupation

is undergoing change. McLagan (1993) warns that “there’s a danger that what

worked in the past will be insufficient and maybe detrimental – in the future” (p.

44).

B.- Expert panels/ focus groups

The distinction between expert panels and focus groups is blurry in the

competency modeling literature. Spencer and Spencer’s (1993, p. 99) description of an

50

expert panel and Dubois and Rothwell’s (2000, p. 2-42) description of the use of focus

groups to identify competencies seem very similar. Dubois and Rothwell suggest the use

of a structured approach such as a modified DACUM to identify the competencies.

Spencer and Spencer suggest a brainstorming session where characteristics of an average

incumbent worker and a super performer are identified. They warn that it is critical that

all the panelists be exemplary performers.

Kelley (1998) used 3 panels of experts to generate and validate the competencies

that will describe a successful superstore manager over the next 5-10 years. The first

panel, composed of 8 managers produced the first list of competencies. The second

panel, made up of 10 “well-known” industry experts rated the list of competencies

generated by the first group. The third panel, composed of 29 senior leaders from “the

most innovative supermarkets in the United States” rated the results from the second

panel. In the end, the study generated 46 competencies grouped around 4 competency

clusters. Lee (1994) looked into the competencies, work outputs and roles of HRD

professionals in Taiwan using a 16 expert panel that met twice and generated 34

competencies. Lee claimed that expert panels were used because of their efficiency and

low associated expenses.

Advantages in using expert panels/focus groups:

1) Efficient. Expert panels can be very efficient when properly organized and

administered.

2) Buy-in. If the expert panel was composed of individuals within the company, the

outcomes may be more readily accepted and supported.

51

3) Increased communication. One of the residual or side effects of this approach is

that it may increase the flow of communication between the participants or

create new work alliances between a firm’s super performers.

Disadvantages in using expert panels/focus groups:

1) Identification of phantom or mythical competencies. Competencies that are

unrelated to or have no predictive value in terms of competent performance may

be identified simply because they reflect the traditions of an organization.

2) Lack of technical vernacular to develop the behavioral descriptors associated to

the competencies can result in inaccurately expressed competencies.

3) If the process is not well structured and managed the outcome may be erroneous

and the resulting model useless. Dubois and Rothwell (2000) do tell us that if

the process is highly structured, the results can be very accurate, “depending on

the motivation of the project manager” (p. 2-43).

4) Participants must be committed to the successful completion of the process.

5) The process is subject to all the pros and cons of group-based approaches.

6) If a heterogeneous group is used, dissentience may prevent the different factions

from reaching consensus.

C.- Survey methods

Surveys can be used to collect data from experts or job incumbents and can serve

two main purposes: the identification of competencies or the rating of competencies that

were identified using another method. Spencer and Spencer (1993) suggest that the focus

of the survey be the jobholder and not the job tasks; furthermore, the respondents

52

should be superior performers in the job, their managers and outside experts.

Montgomery (1983) used an expert panel composed of leaders from three transportation

safety organizations to identify 41 competencies for safety professionals. The list was

then reviewed and edited by a panel composed of five members of the Texas

Transportation Institute. The resulting list of competencies was used to draft a survey-

questionnaire that was validated and reliability was assessed using a Crombach Alpha

test. The survey instrument was distributed to a random sample of 800 of the 1600

members of the American Trucking association. Approximately 39% (312) of the sample

returned their survey questionnaire to validate the model.

A panel of 4 experts put together a 43-item competency model based on the Data

Processing Management Association’s “Computer Information Systems: Curriculum

1981” (Clamon, 1986). The model was then validated with representatives from 27

organizations using an interview-questionnaire method. The survey was mailed to a

random sample of 200 manufacturing organizations with a total of 200 or more

employees. A total of 43 returns were usable and analyzed using a t-test.

The main types of survey methods (Fowler, 1993, p. 64) that can be used in

competency modeling are:

Personal interview surveys. In this case, the interview is conducted face to face and may

be recorded (video or audio) and transcribed at a later time. This method allows the

interviewer to fully interact with the interviewee and witness all the non-verbal cues.

During the interview process, it is possible for the interviewer to create a rapport with

the interviewee thus increase the comfort level; the latter may be very difficult or even

impossible to accomplish using other survey methods. On the downside, personal

53

interviews require a trained interviewer and can be very costly (i.e. interviewer’s time,

transportation expenses, possible lodging costs, transcription costs, etc).

Telephone interview surveys. The telephone interview is conducted at a distance and

may be recorded (audio only). This method is usually less expensive than the personal

interview and allows for better access to people scattered over a large geographic area.

The data collection process is typically simpler and shorter than with personal

interviews. The interaction between the interviewer and interviewee is very limited: the

interviewer can only monitor verbal cues and visuals cannot be used.

Self-administered data collection methods. Self-administered surveys can be conducted

via mail, e-mail, fax or another means of communication. They are convenient for the

respondents who are able to answer questions at their leisure and, able to consult their

records, thus verifying the veracity of their answers. Administering surveys through

electronic media or the mail is relatively inexpensive. The biggest drawback of self-

administered surveys lies on the instrument’s design; the latter is critical and requires

that the questions be drawn up correctly. The language and technical vernacular used in

the instrument must be appropriate to the target respondent group; and confusion and

ambiguity must be reduced to a minimum.

Advantages of survey methods:

1) Efficient. With the exception of the personal interview, survey methods are

usually less expensive than other methods; they provide a quick way to gather

data.

54

2) Access. Survey methods allow investigators to access a large pool of experts.

3) Buy-in. When many people are involved in the competency modeling process,

buy-in is increased and the participants are more likely to accept and abide by

the results.

4) Survey methods can allow for the systematic “distillation” of very large set of

competencies to a manageable, parsimonious competency model.

Disadvantages of survey methods

1) When survey methods are used, respondents usually rely on their perception,

beliefs or preferences instead of facts to answer the questions.

2) As with any other method the sampling process used to identify the participants

is critical and will reflect the results.

D.- Computer-based methods

Computers are playing an increased role in competency modeling. Some retailers

amass competency statements from successful organizations, sort them and place them

in large databases containing not only the competency statements but also the

demographics and cultural/environmental data on the organizations that provided them.

The database is then used to generate competency models based on the inputs entered:

companies are asked questions pertaining to their demographics and organizational

structure and the computer uses an algorithm to “custom design” a competency model.

55

Main advantages of computer-based methods:

1) Most of the work is outsourced. With computer-based methods, the vendors who

provide the services do most of the work.

2) Execution time is reduced.

3) “Implied validity”. Dubois and Rothwell (2000) suggest that since the

competencies entered in the database are obtained from successful organizations

that share the same characteristics as the client, the resulting model has “implied

generalizability”, thus “implied credibility” (p. 2-41).

Main disadvantages of computer-based methods:

1) Validity. The old computer science adage “GIGO” (Garbage In Garbage Out)

applies here. With computer-based methods, the organization must trust that

the vendor properly sorted and selected the competencies that were entered into

the database. It is also critical that the algorithm used to generate the

competency model is based on a sound process.

2) Outdated data. Since the database is usually built on competencies that were

identified through a best practices approach, the competencies in the database

may be outdated. The latter is even more critical for competencies that have a

direct link to technology.

3) Generic model. The model generated by such a process tends to be generic. The

language used to describe the competencies may not reflect the organization’s

vernacular.

4) Cost. The competency modeling effort may end up being very costly relative to

the questionable quality or reliability of the resulting model.

56

E.- Card sort

The card-sort method is described by Dubois and Rothwell (2000) as a process in

which an observer or participant is asked to “sort a set of competency statements

according to a set of instructions” (p. 2-44). The competencies are usually printed on

cards. This approach is very similar to the computer-based method described earlier

with the main difference being that the sorting process is not outsourced.

Main advantages of the card-sort method:

1) The method works well if a large set of competencies identified through another

method needs to be streamlined.

2) Competencies are ranked based on their perceived importance to the group.

3) The process can be conducted remotely.

Main disadvantages of the card-sort method

1) The generation of the original pool of competencies to be sorted is a very critical

step in the process. The “GIGO” concept also applies here. The quality of the

competencies to be sorted will determine the quality of the final product.

2) The sorting algorithm must be well formulated and reflect the desired outcomes.

3) The sorting directions must be clear so that the participants understand exactly

what they are doing.

F.- Direct observations

Direct observation involves two steps: first, scrutinizing all critical job tasks as

incumbent workers complete them; and second, coding the behaviors.

Advantages of direct observations:

57

1) Good verification tool. Direct observations can be great tools to substantiate

competencies that were identified by an expert panel, BEIs or surveys.

2) Effective technical competencies identification tool. Observation is

appropriate when the competencies being identified are technical or not very

abstract. Such a method works well with low skilled or semi-skilled

occupations.

Disadvantages of direct observations:

1) Inefficient. The approach is very expensive and less efficient than most of the

other methods.

2) Does not work well when an occupation involves very abstract competencies

(e.g. managerial or supervisory positions). McLagan (1993) also points out

that not all KSAs (knowledge, skills and attitude competencies) can be

observed directly.

G.- Job task/function analysis

Job task and function analyses entail having employees or observers itemize all

the details involved in performing a task or duty over a certain timeframe. If observers

are used, the analysis becomes very similar to a job observation. Input can also be

collected from the incumbent workers through the use of surveys. Job task/function

analyses are not recommended for competency modeling because the focus is on the job

and not the individual (Spencer & Spencer, 1993).

58

Advantages in using job task or function analyses:

1) The approach works well if the purpose of the effort is to create job descriptions

or design a new position.

2) It can be used to validate competencies that were identified though another

method.

3) The approach meets the 1978 Uniform guidelines on employee selection

procedures, which makes it easier to defend in court.

Disadvantages in using job task or function analyses:

1) The approach focuses on the job and not the exemplars (the individuals who

excel at their job)

2) Task lists are usually very bulky. Spencer and Spencer (1993) tell us that it takes

3,002 motions to drive a car.

H.- The “invented” method

The “invented” method simply involves guessing what the competencies should

be. Dubois and Rothwell (2000) and Rothwell and Lindholm (1999) recognize that the

method offers a very low level of reliability and that the resulting model may not be valid.

This method is not recommended but since some practitioners do use it, it is worth

mentioning. This method involves identifying a group of decision makers and asking

them to simply speculate on what the competencies identifying super performers should

be. This method perhaps may be useful when a group of workers or an organization is

going through a period of change and the incumbent workers have no control over what

the future will look like.

59

Advantages of the “invented” method:

1) Inexpensive

2) Competency model is generated very quickly. It is very difficult to ascertain the

quality of the model generated but it is the quickest and easiest means of

generating a somewhat tailored model.

Disadvantages of the “invented” method:

1) Very low level of reliability.

2) The outcome may not be valid.

3) The results may not be acceptable to the project sponsor and the incumbent

workers who perform the job.

III.- The borrowed-and-tailored approach

The borrowed-and-tailored approach is a hybrid between the borrowed and the

tailored approach. It involves using a model that was developed outside of the group, the

unit or the organization; and customizing it to fit the group or organizational culture. A

good example of the latter is the customization and use of occupation-based models

developed by professional organizations.

Occupation-based model

Many professional organizations sponsor competency modeling efforts for the

benefit of their members. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, the American Institute of

60

Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) sponsored a study (Waller, 1999) to identify the

competencies that were critical to its members. The model deriving from that effort was

used for gap assessment.

Occupation-based models can also be implemented to generate information that

will be reported to governmental agencies such as the department of labor or to develop

certification programs. Data are usually collected from well-known field experts. Dubois

and Rothwell (2000) state that such models are generally of high quality; and go over the

advantages and disadvantages associated with these models (p. 2-39).

Main advantages of using an Occupation-based model:

1) The competencies are defined in the occupation’s vernacular.

2) The competency model describes the entire occupation, not just a niche or a

specialty.

3) Various experts in the field have identified the competencies.

4) The results are easier to defend in court and are usually “recognized by

government persons at all levels of practice” (Dubois & Rothwell, 2000, p. 2-39).

5) They can be used as strong basis to develop a customized model.

Main disadvantages of using Occupation-based model:

1) They are not designed to fit any particular organization and, thus may not fit a

particular organization’s culture.

2) They usually focus on technical competencies and may overlook personal

competencies.

61

Delphi

The study’s methodological framework was based on a modified Delphi

methodology; hence it was deemed necessary to research the literature on the history

and uses of Delphi. This section will begin by looking at the uses of Delphi across various

disciplines before providing an overview of the application of Delphi as a competency

modeling tool. The method will also be covered later in the methods chapter (chapter 3).

Looking into the future with Delphi

The Delphi methodology has been in use for about half a century. Over the years,

the method has been utilized in a variety of environments and for a multitude of

applications. Taylor and Meinhardt (1985) suggested using Delphi to plan for present

and future computer information needs of small businesses. Experiences Inc. sponsored

a Delphic study to forecast the future of the beverage industry and explain contemporary

trends (Dull, 1988). Morley (1990) wrote about a Delphic study to forecast the future of

the automation market and identify possible strategies and implementation concerns.

Lunsford and Bradley (1993) wrote about a Delphic study to develop strategies to deal

with the promising growth of “marketing business services” in the emerging economies

of Hungary, the former Czechoslovakia, Poland, the former East Germany and Russia.

Young, Keng and Leng (1989) used 2 different Delphi panels to project the future of

Singapore’s tourism industry. Pesch (1996) talked about a 2-iteration study involving 15

experts to define Skinner’s (1974) “focused factory” and clarify issues affecting “focused

manufacturing”. Wright (1998) reported on a study that was conducted to forecast the

62

market for broadband telecommunications. The study was based on a Delphic

methodology involving 7 different viewpoints and built on a previous quantitative

analysis of subscriber demand. Jarish (1998) won an “Idea of the Year” award for

developing a technique to facilitate purchasing practices while predicting the cost of

materials. The technique based on a Delphic approach incorporated macroeconomic

forecasts to “produce minimum and maximum predictions and a reliable mean”.

The Life Office Management Association and Arthur Andersen conducted a

Delphic study to examine the future of the insurance industry (Askew, 1984; Razza,

1984). The study involved over 150 life insurance executives and covered multiple

aspects of the insurance industry. The participants were asked to share their views on

four main categories of issues. Iverson and Jorgensen (1986) used Delphi to determine

the technology needs of small and medium size manufacturers in Washington State and

indicate policy directions for the Washington Technology Center. The latter study

involved 70 diverse firms and the use of 3 different instruments. The Colorado chapter of

the Society of Chartered Property and Casualty Underwriters (CPCU) used the Delphi

technique and 282 members of their Chicago chapter to predict the future of the industry

based on an instrument covering 50 property and casualty insurance issues (Dye, Best,

Cole, Essman, & Williams, 1989). Mettler and Baumgartner (1998) reported on a

German research project titled “Socially oriented shaping of technology in the state of

NorthRhine-Westphalia”. The latter was a Delphic study aiming at devising new

decisions, decision-structures and decision-procedures relating to the social and

environmental impacts to contemporary and future technological advances. The research

focused especially on microelectronics and specifically their relation to labor.

63

Couger (1988) described a study that was conducted to single out the 10 most

important issues in the management of human resources in the field of Information

Systems. A three-iteration Delphic approach was used and data were collected from HR

executives of Fortune 500 companies. The survey was modeled after a similar Delphic

study that was carried out with Information Systems executives; and the outcomes of the

two studies were compared. Interestingly, six of the 10 most important issues appeared

in both studies but were ranked differently.

Doke and Swanson (1995) reported on a Delphic study that was undertaken to

identify decision variables for selecting prototyping in information systems development.

The process involved a Delphic panel composed of managers from Computerworld’s

Premier 100 firms that were using prototyping. A literature review was used to identify

19 recurring variables. The expert panel was then asked to isolate and rank the variables

they deemed important when deciding to add prototyping in their systems development

projects. The panel went through 3 iterations, where 9 of the 19 the original variables

and one of the variables that surfaced from the Delphic process were identified as

important. In the end, seven of the most popular items in the literature were ranked

unimportant.

Czinkota and Ronkainen (1997) used a 3-round Delphi approach to forecast

changes in the international business and trade industry over the next decade. The study

started with the selection of a pool of eligible participants chosen by a research council

made up of one leader in each of the following areas: international policy, business and

academia. The leaders were identified as each (1) having more than twenty years of

experience and (2) being well connected in their areas of expertise. The leaders identified

54 experts meeting the following criteria:

64

active career in international business for at least 10 years

leader in their professional setting

visionary

accessibility and willingness to participate in the study.

The sample was stratified into three groups (policy, business and research) of 18 experts.

The policy group was composed of current or former members of the legislative and

executive branches of government. The business group was made up mostly of corporate

presidents and vice-presidents of international operations. The research group was

constituted of university professors and program directors with expertise in

international business. Thirty-four of the 54 experts completed all three rounds of the

study. The first Delphic round provided the participants with an open-ended

questionnaire asking for the “identification of international business dimensions subject

to change in the new millennium” and to “highlight the corporate responses to these

changes”. The first round generated 18 pages of issues and trends, which were

categorized by the research council to (1) eliminate redundancies and (2) make the

second instrument more manageable. In the second iteration, the panelists were asked to

review the categorized data collected from the first iteration and classified by the

research council. The experts were asked to elaborate on the statements, indicate their

agreement or disagreement, assess the likelihood that a particular change would occur

within the next decade using a ten-point Likert scale; and rate the extent of the impact

such a change would have on corporations, using another ten-point Likert scale. The

third and final round concentrated on the statements that generated divergent opinions

from the expert panel (a similar approach was used in the B-to-B market management

competency study).

65

The International Association of Corporate Real Estate Executives (NACORE

International) sponsored a study of the future of the Corporate Real Estate (CRE)

function (Carn, Black & Ribiansky, 1999). The study surveyed 18 corporate real estate

experts from a variety of backgrounds and organizations who went through a “three-

stage information gathering process”. The first step involved telephone interviews to

identify the issues that would makeup the instrument. In the next phase, the experts

were asked to rate the 81-item instrument. The instrument was finally sent to the experts

one last time to rank the competencies using a 5-level scale.

Large Delphic studies

The originators of Delphi (Delbec, Van de Ven & Gustafson, 1975) recommended

panels of 10-15 experts, if the experts represented a homogeneous group, and a

maximum of 30 panelists for the sake of feasibility, manageability and completeness. It

should be mentioned that studies involving more than a hundred participants have been

completed successfully. The Japanese have been conducting large scale quinquennial

Delphic studies of some of their industries since 1971. The Germans, the British and the

French have been doing the same (Coates, 1997, Ushio, 1993, Breiner, Cuhls, & Grupp,

1994). The Securities Industry Association contracted Arthur Andersen & Co. to identify

“the forces that would shape the industry in the next few years” (Piontek, 1985). A

Delphic approach was used to survey 600 executives from securities firms, competitor

organizations, regulators and customers.

An Indian study of 286 participants representing a variety of engineering

disciplines was undertaken to study “major breakthroughs that could conceivably be

66

achieved within the next 3-4 decades” (Garde & Patel, 1985). The results of the 1981-

1982 study sponsored by Bharat Heavy Electrics Ltd. were compared to two other

Delphic studies completed a decade prior. The studies yielded similar results.

Bogart and Moran (1986) reported on a study that was conducted to discover the

forces that will affect the future of advertising research. This Delphic study involved 12

key decision makers and 250 marketing and advertising agency executives. Zelauskas,

Howes and Chrismyer (1988) wrote about a study that aimed at identifying nursing

research priorities within a community-teaching, medical center setting. The study,

designed around a 2 iteration Delphic approach involved 423 nurses. Contrary to the

classic Delphi, each of the 423 participants took part in only one of the two rounds; they

were asked to rate the importance of 11 clinical and non-clinical items to the nursing

practice.

The Council of Logistics Management sponsored a two-phase Delphic study to

identify trends in distribution. The first stage of the study involved a 1983 Delphic panel

to identify trends that will impact the field of logistics in the 1983-1990 time frame. In

the second phase, the original 1983 Delphic panel was replicated in 1987 to look at the

1987-1995 time frame. The second panel, composed of 176 leaders in the logistics field,

completed a three-iteration Delphi (Robeson, 1988). The return rates fluctuated

significantly during the three rounds. At the end of the third round, 76 (43%) of the 176

original panelists returned their survey. The trends identified by the expert panel were

grouped into four main categories:

Computer/Information Processing related trends

International trends

Domestic economic trends

67

Trends in management, strategies & tactics.

The outcomes of the 1983 and 1987 studies were very similar.

The Japanese National Institute of Science and Technology Policy and the

German Fraunhofer Institute for Systems Research conducted a study whose purpose

was to identify technological developments that would take place over the next 20 to 30

years (Ushio, 1993, and Breiner, Cuhls, & Grupp, 1994). The study involved 3,000

Japanese experts who were asked to respond to over 1,000 questions pertaining to the

future of high technology development through the year 2010. The instrument covered

over a dozen different high technology areas (16 areas according to Breiner, Cuhls, &

Grupp and 15 areas according to Ushio) and included:

Products and services

Scientific discoveries

Technological advances.

The study was then translated and replicated in Germany where 1,000 German experts

participated. Overall, the study involved more than 4,000 expert participants and is the

largest Delphic study found in the literature.

The UK Technology Foresight Programme sponsored a Delphic study to look into

potential future developments in Science and technology (Croates, 1997). The study

involved 15 expert panels that identified 1,200 issues. Two thousand five hundred eighty

five surveys were sent out in the first round with a 31% response rate.

68

Using Delphi in competency studies

A modified version of Delphi was used in the business market management

competency study. Delbecq, Van de Ven and Gustafson (1975, p. 106) suggest, that

“Delphi is a decision making tool and should be modified to respond to the needs of the

individual decision makers”. Delphic studies to identify competencies in an occupation

have been conducted in the past. Hein and Glazer-Waldman (1988) reported on the use

of Delphi to distinguish and rank strategic planning skills at the administrative and

middle management level in hospitals. Amunson (1993) conducted a three-iteration

Delphi to identify the competencies needed by community college and continuing

education directors. Cope (1995) used a modified Delphi to uncover the trends affecting

industrial teacher education in the United States. Toh (1997) used a six-member Delphic

panel to validate the content of a competency model that was developed from a review of

the literature on sports management. Keech (1998) identified industry-based

competencies for entry-level retail management positions using a 25-member expert

panel.

Everett (1988) identified the competencies needed by information systems

workers. The study began with a review of the literature followed by interviews with

incumbent workers and state directors. A sixteen-member DACUM (Developing A

CurriculUM) panel was then used to identify and describe broad skill areas. The data

from the DACUM were used to draft a survey instrument with a 4-point Likert scale

where 1= non-essential, 2= somewhat important, 3= very important and 4= essential. An

unusual Delphic panel rated the instrument: instead of super-performers or field

experts, the panelists in this piece of research were identified as 1,047 nationwide

69

members of the Association of Information Systems Professionals (AISP). The first

round of the 2-iteration Delphi was used to rank the list generated from the DACUM;

furthermore, the panelists were asked to add new competencies or comments as they saw

fit. The first round generated 657 responses for a return rate of approximately 64%. The

second and final round produced 475 responses (47% of the initial pool of participants).

The data generated from the Delphic procedure was processed by the inmates working in

the Records Conversion Facility at the Wynn Unit of the Texas Department of

Corrections in Huntsville, Texas. The data were analyzed using medians, interquartile

ranges and an Analysis of Distinction, which was described by the researcher as “rank

ordering of the means”. Using the latter, the researcher labeled the competencies as:

Essential (mean rating of 3.51 or more in iteration 2)

Very important (mean rating of 2.51-3.50 in iteration 2)

Somewhat important (mean rating of 2.50 or less in iteration 2).

Eighteen percent (58) of the task items were rated “essential”, 72% (232) were rated

“very important” and about 10% (30) were rated “somewhat important”. Three skill

groups accounted for more than half (56%) of the essential competencies: “interpersonal

skills”, “communications skills” and “technological skills”.

Polanin (1990) used a modified Delphi to identify future technical competencies

for Computer Integrated Manufacturing (CIM) technicians. An initial list of fourteen

competencies was drafted by a focus group composed of 18 educators and industrial

specialists from the Peoria, Illinois Tri-county area. Eleven out of the 41 professionals

who were asked to nominate experts in their field submitted their recommendations.

Twenty-five experts were identified and contacted by telephone and 23 agreed to

participate in the study. The list of competencies was then used to draft an instrument

70

that was reviewed by the panel of 12 educators and 11 industry experts. The panelists

rated the competencies using a 7-point Likert scale and a Mann-Whitney U test was used

to identify differences between the two groups.

Ewing (1991) utilized a modified Delphi to list the competencies that will be

needed in the future by secretaries in the State of Illinois. An initial list of competencies

was developed from a literature review of previous research studies, articles, textbooks,

and Competency-based Vocational Education (CBVE). A focus group composed of six

educators and six individuals from business, was asked to refine the list of competencies

before it was used to draft the survey instrument. Eighty-five personnel managers of

service businesses and 37 personnel managers representing all universities and colleges

in the state of Illinois that offered degrees in secretarial science, were asked to nominate

experts for the Delphic panel based on the following criteria:

Nominees must be innovative and knowledgeable of the field.

Individuals nominated must be incumbents who actively hire secretaries

or teach secretarial classes.

Nominees must be visionaries and be able to look into the future and

anticipate the competencies that will be needed in a 5 to 10 year time

frame.

Twenty-five business experts and 25 educators were randomly selected from the list of

nominees to form the Delphic expert panel. The experts were asked to review the list of

competencies and add to it as they saw fit. In the second iteration, the panel that was

reduced to 17 business experts and 15 education experts was provided with the updated

list from the first iteration and asked to agree or disagree with the items. If experts

disagreed about having a particular competency on the list, they were asked to provide

71

an explanation. During round 3, the experts were asked to rate the competencies using a

seven-point Likert scale. In round 4, the panelists were provided with the results from

round 3 and were asked to rate each competency as: “very important”, “somewhat

important” or “not important”. Various tools were used to analyze the data. The

competencies’ median scores were compared to identify convergence; if opinions on the

importance of a competency converged around the upper quartile, it was labeled:

“REQUIRED”. The Mann-Whitney U-test was used to identify if significant differences

existed between educators and employers regarding the entry-level skill requirements for

secretarial jobs. The results indicated that “personal characteristics” competencies,

“communications skills” competencies and “basic skills” competencies were identified

respectively as the first, second and third highest rated clusters.

Birdir (1998) used a modified Delphi to identify the competencies of successful

research chefs. The expert educators were chosen with the help of past presidents of the

Council on Hotel, Restaurant & Institutional Education (CHRIE). The industry experts

were selected with the help of a 3-member panel, two of which represented the American

Hotel and Motel Association, and the third, the National Restaurant Association. A

Delphi panel composed of 25 expert educators and 25 industry experts was formed. In

the first iteration, the panelists were asked to answer the following open-ended question:

“What do you perceive as being the desirable competencies resulting from a hospitality

student’s four-year education (excluding travel and tourism) who graduates in the year

2007?” (p. 76). Twenty-two educators and eighteen industry experts responded to the

first iteration and submitted a total of 685 competencies. The researcher collapsed the

latter into 107 more general competencies that were sent back to the panel in iteration 2

to be ranked using a 6-point Likert scale. The panelists were asked to rate the

72

competencies by importance (1= “not important” …6=”very important”) and were asked

to consider ratings 4, 5 and 6 as meaning “core competence” and ratings 1, 2 and 3 as

meaning “supplemental competence” or not essential. By the end of the third round, the

Delphic panel had been reduced to 19 educators and 16 industry experts. The instrument

reported the means of the ratings collected from the second round. Histograms were

used to visually depict convergence and show movement in the ratings. Single factor

ANOVA scores were used to indicate agreement between the educators and industry

experts.

Jagodka (1998) conducted a Delphic study to identify the skills needed by

successful international marketers. Two Delphic panels composed respectively of

educators and industry experts were formed. The experts on the industry panel were

required to be members of the United States Southern California District Export Council

(DEC) and have a minimum of 10 years of experience in international marketing. The

members of the educators’ panel were required to have at least 10 years teaching

international marketing at the post-secondary level and have published at least one

article on international marketing in “scholarly literature”. The instrument used in the

first iteration was derived from a review of the literature on international marketing. The

panelists were asked to review the list and add the skills they felt were missing. Contrary

to all the other Delphic studies that have been reviewed, some of the first iteration

questionnaires in this study were administered in person. The panelists met at a

quarterly District Export Council (DEC) meeting and filled their questionnaires in the

same room, at the same time. The other questionnaires were administered through

electronic mail. The competencies that were added during the first iteration were

inserted into the second round instrument and were sent out three months after the first

73

iteration. The researcher does not provide any information as to how the redundancies

were eliminated. In the second and third instruments, the participants were asked to rate

the competencies using an 8-point Likert scale. The following measures were added in

the third iteration of the instrument: the mean rating from all the panelists, each

panelist’s individual rating and the interquartile range of the ratings. The third iteration

took place a month after the second. Unlike all the other studies reviewed, the

practitioner instrument was administered through the phone. Interquartile range

differences were used to ascertain consensus through a “priority matrix structuring

device”. Using the latter, the investigator affixed each competency on a cell in a matrix

and the competencies were compared.

Rudolf (1999) used Delphi to determine the desirable competencies of hospitality

graduates in the year 2007. The “Research Chefs Association” sponsored the study and

provided the researcher with two board members who nominated the twelve research

chefs who were invited to participate in the pilot study. Ten of the pilot instruments were

returned and a total of 320 knowledge, skills, ability and behavioral statements collected.

Thirty-three research chefs representing 10% of the research chef population were

nominated to participate in the Delphi, but 28 of the nominees accepted the invitation.

Twenty-five of the instruments were returned and new knowledge, skills, ability and

behavioral statements identified through the first iteration were added to the first

instrument. In addition, some of the previous statements were restated based on

comments from the panelists. A total of 22 instruments were returned during the second

round. The results of the Delphic study were analyzed using the frequencies, means,

variances and standard deviations.

74

Summary

Business marketing education is still evolving and very little has been written on

the topic. Marketing educators must adapt their curriculum to satisfy the needs of both

their customers: the students and the companies that employ them. In order to

accomplish the latter, they must find the right balance between teaching a curriculum

that is theory-based and at the same time teaches the students practical skills that can be

directly applied on the job.

Since the publication of McLagan’s 1980 article on competencies, many

competency models have been developed for various occupations to serve an assortment

of purposes, among which: recruitment and selection, assessment, individual

development planning, training curriculum design, individual career planning, coaching,

counseling, mentoring, sponsoring, succession planning and high potential

identification, career pathing, performance management, competency-based pay,

integrated human resources, management information systems and competency-based

workforce planning. Experts predict that in the future, competency models will be used

as a tool to deal with various issues pertaining to multiculturalism, careers and

organizational strategy. These models will be the link between individual career

development and organizational strategy. All the competency modeling approaches

identified in the literature can be pigeonholed into one of three methodologies: the

borrowed approach, the tailored approach and the borrowed and tailored approach.

The Delphi method has been in use for about fifty years; and over that time, it has

been modified by researchers to fit the needs of their studies. Over the past decade, the

method has been used to develop competency models for a variety of occupations

75

ranging from culinary arts to information technology. The next chapter will cover the

modified Delphic approach that was used to develop the business-to-business market

management competency model.

Chapter 3

Methodology

There are three principal means of acquiring knowledge available to us: observation of nature, reflection, and experimentation. Observation collects facts; reflection combines them; experimentation verifies the result of that combination. Our observation of nature must be diligent, our reflection profound, and our experiments exact. Denis Diderot (1713-84).

77

Introduction

Traditionally, competency models have been built using retrospective studies

focused on past critical events, but due to the dynamic nature of the world we live in, a

future orientation is warranted (Rothwell & Lindholm, 1999). Two decades earlier,

McLagan (1980) warned that a “strategic and futuristic perspective” should be used in

situations where change is imminent; unfortunately, she did not suggest a specific

approach.

The purpose of this study was two-fold. First, it sought to develop and analyze a

systematic approach to building future-oriented competency models by refining and

adding rigor to a modified hybrid-Delphic methodology. The latter was then used to

identify the competencies that will define an exceptional business-to-business market

manager over the next five years; and synthesize a model based on these traits. Even

though the business-to-business market management occupation is present in various

types of industries, it is assumed that there exists a core set of competencies that is

common to all exemplary performers in that occupation.

Despite the fact that the Delphi forecasting technique had been in use for over

three decades, in 1984 Preble warned

the proliferation of Delphi applications has not been paralleled by an increase in the level of methodological rigor or sophistication in its use. In fact, the popularization of Delphi may have in some cases even contributed to a decline in the quality of the Delphi studies being conducted.

A review of the literature did not support that the latter had changed over the past 15

years, but sporadic interest in the method triggered the publication of a few empirically-

based articles on the technique. In essence, Delphi is a qualitative method (Rowe &

78

Wright, 1999) that allows for the quantification of concepts identified and refined

through an iterative process; it is a qualitative technique with quantitative overtones. In

this study, Delphi was coupled with various methods and data collection techniques such

as content analysis, interviews, expert panels, self-administered surveys and statistical

methods. Although some of the aforementioned techniques are implicit parts of the

classical Delphi method, it was deemed prudent to break apart the various components

that made up this flavor of Delphi; and analyze them by looking at their strengths and

weaknesses. A synopsis of the research model highlighting the key phases of the study is

depicted in figure 3.1. This piece of research involved a multi-method approach but

triangulation was not limited to the methodology: data triangulation and investigator

triangulation were used to strengthen various aspects of the study (Patton, 1990, p187).

This chapter will begin with a conspectus of descriptive and exploratory research

approaches, followed by an overview of the methodological framework used in this

study. The individual methods will then be described and their methodological

limitations discussed. The chapter will conclude with a description of the evolution of the

survey instrument followed by a summary of the three Delphic iterations.

79

Purpose of environmental scan: Identify and understand the target population, the current state of the field and current research/trends

Literature review: The literature was consulted at various phases of the study to clarify terms and concepts

Tim

e

Pre-Delphi processes - Design of informative website - Nomination process - Delphi Panel synthesis

Delphi Panel preparations - Study website design - Nomination process - Delphi Panel synthesis

Presentations Study is co-presented at (4) ISBM educator’s consortium meetings with the ISBM Executive Director

Literature Review - Competency modeling - Assessment of Methods - B-to-B marketing (content analysis)

Review panels - Preliminary skills inventory - Distillation of functional skills inventory - Refinement of clusters

Straw man (prelusive model) - Final layout review - Pilot - Final modifications

Delphi - Content analysis (1rst round comments) - Functional competency model - Preliminary data analysis

Analysis - Kernel - Final functional competency model - Emergent model

Process

Environmental scanning: - Understanding the incumbent worker - Interviews with Researchers/

Educators/Faculty Members

Figure 3.1- Research model. Simplified diagram highlighting the main steps of the research process

80

Naturalistic inquiry and inductive methods

Descriptive research is used to document characteristics of individuals or groups;

since it uses data that are collected as they naturally exist (rather than through

experiments), descriptive studies are also considered observational or nonexperimental

(Portney and Watkins, 2000, p.265). Because of the exploratory nature of this study, a

prospective naturalistic inquiry methodology coupled with a pragmatic inductive

analysis approach was used.

In prospective studies the variables are measured as the research evolves, the

data are measured real time, as opposed to retrospective studies where the data were

collected in the past. Prospective studies are more reliable than retrospective studies

simply because the researcher has better control of the data collection process;

conversely, these types of studies tend to be time consuming and costly (Portney et al.).

The naturalistic inquiry approach is defined by Patton (1990) as the study of “real-world

situations as they unfold naturally; non-manipulative, unobtrusive, and non controlling;

openness to whatever emerges – lack of predetermined constraints on outcomes” (p. 40).

Naturalistic inquiry is usually combined with an inductive analysis methodology. In the

latter, “patterns, themes and categories of analysis come from the data; they emerge out

of the data rather than being imposed on them prior to data collection and analysis”

(Patton, 1990, p.197). The concept is very similar to grounded theory research, an

inductive approach where the investigator collects, codes and analyzes data at the same

time while

(…) identifying relevant variables which may lead to the development of theoretical concepts that are “grounded” in the observations. These concepts are not based on preconceived hypotheses, but instead grow out of an ongoing, dynamic analysis (.…) As the process progresses,

81

interrelationships emerge that lead to the development of theoretical concepts (Portney at al, 1990, p 266).

Babbie (1993) describes inductive methods as “the development of generalizations from

specific observations”. Such an approach allows for a tremendous amount of flexibility

and tolerates slight adjustments of the study design based on the data: the researcher

can look into new directions that were not anticipated in the initial design of the study.

The various steps of the study’s design are tuned based on the findings from the

preceding steps.

Qualitative inquiry designs cannot be completely specified in advance of fieldwork. While the design will specify an initial focus (…) and primary questions to be explored, the naturalistic and inductive nature of the inquiry makes it both impossible and inappropriate to specify operational variables, state hypotheses, and finalize either instrument or sampling schemes (Patton, p.61).

The methodology used in this study is structured around pragmatism therefore it

is centered primarily on real-world practical knowledge and applications. Pragmatism,

an American philosophical doctrine developed in the 19th century by Charles Sanders

Peirce, a physicist and William James, a psychologist, contends that the practical

applications and results of and idea or theory are more important than the idea or theory

itself. The focus is on the outcome rather than the origin. Unlike studies based on

grounded theory, the investigator will not generate new theory but will synthesize an

emergent model based on theoretical concepts that surfaced from the analysis.

Furthermore, the goal of the study was to identify the competencies that will define

exceptional B-to-B marketers without focusing on “why” these particular competencies

were selected. Figure 3.2 depicts a simplified view of the inductive approach that was

used to generate the competency model.

82

Environmental scanning

Synthesis of emergent model (theoretical)

Prefactory competency model

Identification of competency areas

Functional competency model

Identification of theoretical concepts

Figure 3.2. Illustration of inductive process leading to the synthesis of theemergent competency model.

83

Delphi methodology

The Delphi technique is described by Helmer (1966, P-3499, p.1) as “a method for

the systematic solicitation and collation of expert opinions”. Delphi allows for the

refinement of group judgments by way of an iterative questionnaire (Dalkey, 1969, RM-

5888-PR). The technique was invented in the early 1950s by Helmer and his colleagues

at the Rand Corporation for the Department of Defense; and has been labeled “the

cornerstone of futures research”. The technique was subsequently utilized in the mid

1960s for technological forecasting (Linstone and Turoff, 1975). Over the past three

decades, many variations of the Delphi method have been created. In the original Delphi,

the first instrument was used to collect initial data by asking the panel open-ended

questions. In this study, the investigator used a literature review, interviews with

researchers and a series of expert panels to draft the first questionnaire. The instrument

was then reviewed by a panel composed of business-to-business practitioners and

educators, workforce development researchers and research methodologists before being

sent to the Delphic panel.

In order to better understand Delphi, a gamut of studies based on the technique

was reviewed and described in the previous chapter (literature review-chapter 2).

Characteristics of the Delphi technique

The Delphi technique has been used mostly as a forecasting tool. It allows for the

collection of expert opinions without having to assemble the panelists in the same room.

84

The opinions are collected through a series of iterative questionnaires (distributed

through the mail, e-mail or fax) and consensus is measured through quantitative

methods. Given that the experts never meet face-to-face and are not aware of one

another’s identities, it is assumed that bias and groupthink are reduced; and the

anonymity allows the participants to be as honest as possible. In addition, “Delphi

method results can serve to guide the design of forward-looking program curricula in

education as well as help to seek a wealth of predicted best solutions to problems in other

areas where consensus among experts can be attained through interaction” (Rudolph,

1999, p. 8).

Delbecq, Van de Ven and Gustafson (1977) identify 7 main characteristics of the

Delphic process that facilitate decision making (p. 34); some of these characteristics are

also reflected in Hammond and Murry (1995):

1) The isolated generation of ideas allows for the origination of a large

number of perspectives.

2) The writing and submission process allows for the generation of high

quality ideas: the respondents can take their time and think about the

questions before they submit their answers.

3) The ideas generated by panelists tend to be their own: they cannot

piggyback on another panelist’s idea (at least during the first iteration).

4) The anonymous nature of the Delphic process eliminated some of the

conformity pressures that may exist in other methods that involve face-

to-face interaction.

5) The Delphic process has a tendency to end with the panelists having a

sense of closure.

85

6) The technique is useful when the experts being polled are scattered in a

large geographic location.

Delbecq, Van de Ven and Gustafson also identify 3 characteristics of Delphi that may

hinder the decision making process. First, the process does not allow for “social-

emotional rewards”. Secondly, Delphi does not usually provide the verbal clarification of

ambiguous feedback from the panelists. In this study, a process was put in place to deal

with this issue: the researcher would simply contact the panelists who submitted an

unclear or ambiguous comment via e-mail or telephone; and ask them to reword or

explain their comment. Lastly, the majority tends to rule and conflicts may never be

resolved. This study adopted a systematic process to (1) isolate the controversial

competencies, (2) share the results with the participants and (3) provide them with a

means of addressing their differences or attempt to explain them (the latter was done

both during and after the Delphi). Delbecq at al. also identify three additional criteria

that are critical to the success of a Delphic study: adequate time, motivated participants

and participants with good written communication skills.

Consensus and Delphi method

One of the inherent traits of the Delphic process is the ability to measure the level

of consensus among the panelists. The purpose of the iterative process is not to induce

unanimity but to identify the areas where there is consensus and pinpoint matters on

which expert opinions differ. Some critics have argued that the increase in consensus

between rounds is a byproduct of conformance,

86

“that the ‘consensus’ is often only ‘apparent’, and that the convergence of responses is mainly attributable to other socio-psychological factors leading to conformity (e.g. Sackman, 1975; Bardeki, 1984; Stewart, 1987)” (Rowe & Wright, 1999, p. 363).

Conversely, Rowe and Wright contend that Delphi panelists who are right on the first

iteration are less likely to change their estimates over subsequent rounds (p.372) and

that less-knowledgeable experts are more likely to move toward the group average, in

accordance with the “Theory of Errors”.

Reliability and the Delphi technique

Ono and Wedemeyer (1994) wrote that the accuracy of the Delphi technique in

short-range forecasting is supported empirically but few studies have focused on the

reliability of the technique for long-range forecasts. The authors assessed the accuracy of

a three-round Delphic study that was conducted in 1976. In the latter, 60 communication

experts were asked to forecast trends and events thirty years into the future, with 1991

established as the midpoint. At the end of the study, the third iteration quantitative data

were analyzed using medians and semi-interquartile ranges.

In 1992, fifteen of the original sixty experts and fourteen “new” experts agreed to

participate in a one-time inquiry to assess the outcomes of the Delphi. In the end, the

1976 trend forecasts were significantly correlated with the 1992 trend assessments. The

results supported that Delphi is a valid technique for long range forecasting; although,

the authors warned that the accuracy of the forecasts may have been attributed not only

to the Delphi technique, but also to the selection of the expert panelists, the

implementation of the method and the nature of the field in which the study was being

87

conducted. The researchers explained that the communication and medical fields have

had an excellent track record for living up the expectations of forecasters.

Robeson (1988) reported on the “repetition” of a 1983 Delphic study to forecast

future trends in business logistics. The first study was aimed at predicting trends in

distribution from 1983 to 1990 (details on the methodology were not provided). The

second Delphi took place five years later and was conducted using three iterations and 76

panelists. The researcher concluded that “based on a broad interpretation of the trends,

there were surprisingly few differences in the findings of the 1983 and 1987 studies”

(p.13).

In their 1984 article examining the factors contributing to Delphi accuracy,

Parenté, Anderson, Myers and O’Brian wrote:

Several authors have indicated that the group prediction of a panel generally will be superior to those obtained from individual participants (Hogarth, 1978; Loye, 1978; Boje and Maurnighan, 1982; Hill, 1982). These findings are consistent with Helmer’s statements (1981, p.83) that, at a purely statistical level, ‘N heads are better than one’. This is simply to say that when the judgments of a large number of people are combined (even if they are not experts in a given field (Welty, 1974), the accuracy of the majority of the vote is as good and often superior to the average panel member’s. (p. 174)

Different flavors of Delphi

Over the past four decades, Delphi has been mixed with various other methods

(both qualitative and quantitative) to create hybrid methodologies. Also known as

methodological triangulation, the latter allows researchers to strengthen their study’s

design and increase the rigor of the findings (Denzin, 1978 and Patton, 1990).

88

Khorramshahgol and Gousty (1986) suggested using Delphic Goal Programming,

a combination of the Delphi method and goal programming, to deal with the problems

pertaining to the allocation of resources. Khorramshahgol and Moustakis (1988)

proposed the Delphic Hierarchy Process, a hybrid of Delphi and the analytic hierarchy

process, to identify and prioritize organizational objectives. A few years later, McCarthy

(1992) criticized Khorramshahgol’s approach and wrote about what he perceived to be a

flaw in the analytic hierarchy process segment of the method, but conceded that the

Delphic Hierarchy Process was “potentially useful”. Nimgade and Sonk (1991) combined

multiple regression analysis and the Delphi method to quantify technological

improvement in non-monetary terms. The study involved a two-iteration Delphi using 18

panelists who were selected based on their depth of specialized knowledge, the likelihood

that they would appreciate disciplines other than their own and the likelihood they

would complete both iterations of the study.

Vickers (1992) proposed a hybrid between Delphi and cross impact analysis

called Group Decision Support System (GDSS) to provide an interactive approach to

decision making and forecasting. The method was used to identify 34 events and trends

that would impact the European automobile industry. Taylor (1994) used Delphi to

define potential marketing problems. Working on the premise that willingness to

participate in the Delphic process is positively correlated with (1) a participant’s

motivation to complete the project and (2) a reduction of completion time; he preceded

the Delphi session with the Optimal Satisficing Consensus Building approach to “deal

with the issue of willingness to participate in group processes”. Passig (1997) offered the

Imen-Delphi method as an alternative to the classical Delphic approach to conducting

89

futures research. He claimed that the Imen-Delphi method improves the efficiency of the

Delphic panel when the main goal is to invent change.

Delphi vs. alternatives

Various methods can be used to attempt to anticipate the future or draw

comparisons between how things are and how they will be. Many researchers use

quantitative methods such as regression models and time series to predict the future.

Interviews of innovative and visionary experts can help researchers identify future trends

but the validity of the outcome relies heavily on the subjects’ perception of the future.

Naisbitt (1982, 1990) has used content analysis with both qualitative and quantitative

components to forecast future trends.

In all the previously described tactics, the accuracy of the forecasts is dependent

on external variables that are impossible to control. A period of “punctuated

equilibrium” (Thurrow, 1996, p. 7), of unexpected and abrupt change in evolution of the

system being studied can drastically impact the future therefore render the predictions

erroneous. Thurrow tells us that social and economic systems

emerge from periods of punctuated equilibrium with radically different structures that once again begin slowly evolving (.…) During periods of punctuated equilibrium everything is in flux, disequilibrium becomes the norm, and uncertainty reigns! (p. 8)

i) Delphi vs. statistical measures

According to Rowe and Wright (1999)

90

Delphi is not a procedure intended to challenge statistical or model-based procedures, against which human judgment is generally shown to be inferior: it is intended for use in judgment and forecasting situations in which pure model-based statistical methods are not practical or possible because of the lack of appropriate historical/economic/technical data, and thus where some form of human judgmental input is necessary (e.g. Wright, Lawrance & Calloopy, 1996). (p.354)

They go on to tell us that a dozen out of fourteen studies support that under the

appropriate conditions, Delphi can outperform statistical approaches (p. 364). Calantone

and Di Benedetto (1987) suggest that speculative methods such as Delphi forecasting and

scenario writing are able to provide longer-term projections than exploratory studies

that are based on regression models, time series and gravity approaches. They argue that

regression models and time series which are efficient and less costly work well in short

term forecasting but can be erroneous if “unforeseen occurrences happen”. They contend

that speculative approaches like Delphi allow for more leeway and are more likely to

account for changes in the environment that would not be identified through the use of

speculative approaches.

Delphi has also been used instead of quantitative correlation techniques to

investigate and explain relationships. Hatush and Skitmore (1997) reported on a Delphic

study exploring “the perceived relationship between 20 contractor selection criteria

(CSC) (…) and project success factors (PSF) in terms of time, cost and quality”. Eight

experienced construction personnel generated a list of the 10 most and 10 least

important CSCs, which led to an investigation, and comparison of the associated PSFs.

91

ii) Delphi vs. content analysis

Czinkota and Ronkainen (1997) considered the use of a broad-based content

analysis to examine trends as suggested by Wheeler (1988) and Naisbitt (1990). Wheeler

argues that content analysis is an important tool because it can provide a worldwide

perspective on the status quo and what is to come. Even though broad-based content

analysis can be very valuable in examining future trends, Czinkota and Ronkainen

maintain that the process is very resource intensive and bias can immerge from the

perceptions and interpretations of the researcher; and possibly from language

limitations. Furthermore, using content analysis as the sole methodology in a study does

not allow for any interaction between various stakeholders such as policy makers,

business leaders and academics.

92

Primary data collection methodologies

This study was conducted using a modified Delphi technique where the initial

Delphic instrument was created using a literature review, interviews and expert review

panels. A synopsis of the research model was depicted in figure 3.1 and the data

collection process is described in figure 3.4. Overall, the study took place over a period of

three years punctuated by the ups and downs of the American economy. Three main data

collection methods were used throughout this piece of research. Even though Data

triangulation can be time consuming and costly (Patton, 1990), it allows the researcher

to look at the information collected from different perspectives; thereby increasing the

validity of the data. The three data collection methods are depicted in figure 3.3. It

should also be mentioned that each of these three collection methodologies involved the

use of various techniques or methods.

Environmental scanning Content analysis

Self-administered surveys

Figure 3.3. Three main data collection methods.

93

Competence

Delphi

B-2-B marketing

Literature review

Content analysis

Informal interviews

Competencies inventory v.1

Review panel

#1

Competencies inventory v.2

Review panel

#2

Competencies inventory v.3

Review panel

#3

Design of instrument

Iteration #1 Instrument

Modifications

Final Instrument

Review

Analysis

Functional & emergent models

Perspectives

Identification of Kernel

Iteration #1

Qualitative analysis

Iteration #2

instrument

Iteration #2

Quantitative analysis

Iteration #3

instrument

Iteration #3

Quantitative analysis

Delphi

Figure 3.4. Data Collection Process. Modified Delphi (w/ methodological triangulation and stratified sampling) using anaturalistic inquiry methodology coupled with pragmatic inductive analysis.)

94

Environmental scanning

The first step of the study involved a tripartite environmental scan. The latter was

deemed necessary to provide the researcher with the background needed to plan and

carryout the study. The environmental scan’s purpose was to firstly understand the

target population, its intricacies and the various strata within the business-to-business

occupation. That knowledge was used to establish a starting point for the literature

review and ultimately select the methodology that was used to carryout the study.

Secondly, the environmental scan was used to give the researcher a holistic view of

business marketing as a field. Thirdly, the scan allowed the researcher to identify and

better understand the leading trends and research areas in B-to-B marketing.

Environmental scanning is the process of monitoring an environment in order to

obtain information that can guide decision-making and planning processes (Aguilar,

1967). The approach can be proactive and exploratory when used to anticipate problems

or discover opportunities (Choudhury & Sampler, 1997). Additionally, environmental

scanning can be used to identify events and trends in an environment; to identify and

explain relationships between them and to enhance decision making and planning

(Costa 1995; Costa & Teare, 2000).

In its early stages, the environmental scan was guided with information gathered

from meetings with four researchers affiliated with the Institute for the study of Business

Markets. The individuals were active university professors and researchers with strong

consulting practices: they served as trainers/coaches/consultants to business-to-

business firms in various industries. These four individuals were selected and contacted

with the help of the Executive Director of the ISBM. The purpose of the meetings was to

95

help the researcher identify future trends that may impact business marketing and better

understand business marketers (educators and practitioners). These meetings provided

direction for the early phases of the literature review. During the scanning process, the

researcher attended and presented the study at professional meetings in order to get a

general sense of the business marketers’ needs and the possible use of a competency

model. The practitioners were asked to submit ideas that could improve the study. Other

topics covered, ranged from finding the least intrusive means of collecting data to

generating a model that would be most useful to B-to-B firms. Later into the scanning

process, over a dozen companies were polled and asked whether they were using some

form of skills inventory or a competency model and more than a third responded that

they were using some form of a skills inventory. When asked if they were willing to share

it, only one company agreed to do so but the majority of the companies said they would

support and participate in an effort to build an occupation-wide competency model.

The environmental scan directed the early phases of the literature review. The

latter covered three general areas:

a. Competency models and Competence.

b. Business-to-business marketing and business marketing trends.

c. The Delphi technique, variations of Delphi and the applications of Delphi.

The literature review is summarized in chapter two. By the end of the environmental

scanning and literature review processes, a rudimentary skills inventory was developed

based on the data collected and organized around the ISBM Value framework and the

Business Market Processes Model (Anderson & Narus, 1999). The ISBM value

framework is at the center of the institute’s research and education endeavors; figure 3.5

depicts a simplified diagram highlighting the main components of the framework.

96

A more advanced model is described by Anderson and Narus in a 1999 textbook funded

by the ISBM. The comprehensive book featured value as the cornerstone of business

marketing and identified nine constituent processes that makeup business market

management. The authors clustered the processes around three main concepts:

understanding value, creating value and delivering value (figure 3.6).

Content analysis

Both qualitative and quantitative content analysis methods were used in various

aspects of this study. Berelson (1952) defines content analysis as “a research technique

for the objective, systematic, and quantitative description of the manifest content of

communications” (p. 18). Over the past century, content analysis has been used for

various purposes among which, trend analysis. Holsti (1969) and Krippendorff (1980)

tell us that in 1893, Speed analyzed four New York newspapers (the Tribune, World,

Times and Sun) from 1881-1893 to observe changes in subject matter categories. Speed’s

analysis was based on the number of column inches devoted to various subjects. Holsti

(1969) describes similar studies that have been conducted since the beginning of the

20th century; among which, Tenney (1912) who looked into the amount of space devoted

by ethnic newspapers to certain subjects; Matthews (1910) who pigeonholed 10,000

items of a single newspaper into one of 4 categories (trivial, demoralizing, unwholesome

and worthwhile); and Ash (1948) who studied the media representation of the Taft-

Hartley Labor Act. Content analysis was used primarily in two phases of B-to-B market

management study.

97

1. Build Value Understanding

2. Strategy Formulation

3. Design Customer Value

4. Communicate and Deliver Value 5. Life-Cycle Management Figure 3.5. ISBM Value-Delivery Framework. Simplified diagram highlighting the main

elements of the Value Framework.

Understanding Value:

Crafting market strategy Understanding firms as customers Market sensing

Creating Value

Managing market offerings New offering realization Business channel management

Delivering Value

Gaining customers Sustaining reseller partnerships Sustaining customer relationships

Figure 3.6. Simplified depiction of Business Market Processes (Anderson and Narus, 1999).

98

Business-to-business marketing content analysis. In the early stages of this study,

content analysis was used to scan the business-to-business/industrial marketing

literature and general management periodicals, journals and magazines to identify:

1) the trends that have affected business to business marketing over the past 5 years

2) the trends that are currently affecting business-to-business marketing

3) the trends that will affect business-to-business marketing over the next 5-10

years.

Delphic content analysis. In the Delphi portion of this study, content analysis was used

to group competencies into clusters and collapse redundant items submitted by the

Delphic panel.

Sampling in content analysis

The first step in content analysis should be to identify all the sources that may

contain information on the subject being studied. In most cases, it is impossible to do so.

In this study, it would have been unreasonable to cover all the literature that has been

written on business-to-business marketing, but it was possible to analyze all the survey

instruments generated by the Delphic panel. When the population of documents is too

extensive to allow for a full analysis of documents, stratified sampling is usually the next

best approach. Holsti (1969) warns that the “initial impetus for sampling may be the very

practical requirement of reducing the volume of data to manageable proportions, but

sampling is not merely a process of data reduction” (p.128).

99

Sampling and the business-to-business marketing content analysis. In this study, the

initial content analysis covered 132 periodicals, journals and magazines from 1995-2000,

from all over the world (list provided in appendix A). Various databases with a special

focus on marketing, business marketing, business management, and other business-

related issues and topics were searched. The goal of this very broad search was to

identify issues that were impacting business marketing.

Sampling and the Delphic content analysis. All the inputs from the first Delphic

iteration were analyzed using qualitative and quantitative content analysis.

Reliability issues related to content analysis

In content analysis, reliability is directly linked to the researcher’s objectivity, the

reliability of the measures and procedures used and the degree of “ambiguity in the data”

(Holsti, 1969). The results of the study are also affected by:

Individual reliability. Krippendorff (1980) talks about a similar concept but

calls it “stability”. If more than one coder is used, individual reliability impacts

the synchronicity between the approaches the analysts employ to sort their data.

Category reliability. The latter reflects the way by which categories are

formulated and identified.

Reliability and the business-to-business marketing content analysis. It would have been

close to impossible for the investigator to go through tens of thousands of articles and

analyze their content without the help of databases and search engines. Reliability in the

100

marketing trends content analysis was directly linked to the reliability of the database

search engines used and their ability to pull and sort the appropriate articles. Since

search engines function based on a pre-programmed algorithm, the results will be very

similar every time (until new articles are added to the database). Since qualitative

methods were used to identify themes and organize the data, individual reliability and

category reliability were also a factor. After the articles had been identified, the

researcher read the abstract or the full article and assigned it to a theme. The researcher

put similar articles in the same “virtual” pile. As the themes or pigeonholes were being

identified, the researcher kept track of the frequency of their reoccurrence. The

researcher met regularly with a subject matter expert, the executive director of the ISBM,

to discuss his findings.

Reliability and the Delphic content analysis. The content analysis of the inputs from the

first Delphic iteration was undertaken using a systematic process that involved

identifying similar themes and collapsing similar competencies and comparable

behavioral anchors into one comprehensive item. The task was conducted by the

researcher and reviewed with the Executive Director of the ISBM. In order to reduce

individual reliability issues, both coders worked in unison during the review process.

Category reliability was also a concern. In the inception of the instrument,

comprehensive categories covering the business-to-business marketing spectrum had

been identified. During the Delphic content analysis, the biggest burden revolved around

the proper categorization of the new competencies that were identified. When the

competency was unclearly stated, the panelist who submitted it was contacted for

clarification.

101

Validity issues related to content analysis

Face validity is the most common measure of validity in the content analysis

literature. Babbie (1998) describes face validity as “particular empirical measures [that]

may or may not jibe with our common agreements and our individual mental images

concerning a particular concept”. Holsti (1969) suggests that if a study is purely

descriptive, face validity is generally sufficient and it is by and large “established through

the informed judgment of the investigator” (p. 143). Krippendorff (1980) identifies

various nuances of validity in content analysis:

Semantical validity is related to the sensitivity of a method with regards

to symbolic meanings of words or expressions in a specific context.

Sampling validity is associated with the extent by which data are unbiased

or similar to another sample from the same universe.

Pragmatical or product-oriented validity measures how well a method

works under various conditions.

Correlational validity is the extent to which the results from one method

correlate with the results attained from another method. Correlational

validity “means both, high correlations between the inferences from a

content analysis and other measures of the same contextual

characteristics (convergent validity) and low correlations between such

inferences and measures of different characteristics (discriminant

validity)” (p. 157).

Predictive validity. “In content analysis, predictive validity requires that

the obtained inferences show high agreement with the states, attributes,

102

events, or properties in the context of data to which these inferences refer

(regardless of whether these are past, concurrent, or future phenomena)

and high disagreement with the contextual characteristic that these

inferences logically exclude” (p. 157).

Process oriented validity relates to the extent by which an analytical

process accounts for relations in the context of data. The concept is

similar to construct validity.

Validity and the business-to-business marketing content analysis. In the trends content

analysis semantical validity was not deemed to be an issue. Most of the articles reviewed

were marketing-related; therefore the vernacular was appropriate and geared toward

marketing professionals. In order to increase sampling validity and process-oriented

validity, a gamut of national and international journals, magazines and periodicals

geared toward marketing (and general business) professionals (both educators and

practitioners) were searched. Since the conditions were not changing dramatically

during the period covered by the literature review, pragmatical validity was not deemed

to be a worrisome issue (the recent DotCom bubble burst occurred after the content

analysis process). Correlational validity was simply measured by looking at the overlaps

between the results of the content analysis and the four initial meetings with the faculty

members. Because of the heuristic nature of this study, predictive validity was very

difficult to measure. Since the study does not examine the business-to-business

marketing environment in detail, it was therefore not feasible to measure the predictive

validity of the constructs that stemmed from the content analysis of the trends. It was

assumed that to a certain extent, predictive validity could be measured simply by looking

103

at the frequencies with which certain trends and concepts were identified from the

literature. The researcher acknowledges that the main flaw of this approach is that a

trend or concept may keep recurring simply because it is a fad that may not have any

substantial predictive value.

Validity and the Delphic content analysis. Since all the panelists were experts in the

subject area or well-seasoned researchers and practitioners, it is assumed that they have

a good grasp of their field's jargon therefore, semantical validity was not deemed to be a

problematic issue. Furthermore, the researcher conducted the data clustering with the

assistance of the Executive Director of the ISBM who has extensive experience as a

practitioner, a researcher, an educator and a coach in the business-to-business

marketing arena. Since all the data collected from the panel were eviewed, sampling

validity was not regarded as a problem. Understanding the pragmatical validity of this

modified Delphi approach was one of the primary purposes of this study. Pragmatical

validity was assessed after the completion of the Delphic process and the results are

scattered in various sections of chapters 3, 4 and 5. Correlational validity was difficult to

measure simply because there were no studies identified in the literature review that

looked into the future of business-to-business marketing competencies. A possible

alternative is to look at how much of the initial list of competencies (generated by the

content analysis of trends and the informational interviews) changed through the

Delphic process; the section labeled “evolution of the survey instruments”, in the next

chapter, addresses that issue. Since the study was future-oriented and heuristic in

nature, the outcome of the study rested heavily on the “expertise” of the panel; thus

predictive validity is difficult to quantify or explain qualitatively. A possible alternative

104

could be to see how many of the trends and concepts from the initial content analysis are

reflected in the final list of competencies. In order to increase process-oriented validity,

the analysis of the data was thorough: it was analyzed from various perspectives.

Self-administered surveys

Survey research is one of the oldest forms of data gathering methods. Babbie

(1989) tells us that censuses are mentioned in the Old Testament and they have been

used by Egyptian rulers who desired the information in order to better manage their

domain. Self-administered surveys were used as far back as 1880 to gather information:

Karl Marx sent out 25,000 self-administered surveys in an attempt to measure the

degree of exploitation of workers by their employers. Self-administered surveys were

used in many of the competency identification studies described in chapter two. Babbie

recommends that the researchers set up a systematic process to monitor returns and

code the data so that they track the number of non-respondents. He also recommends an

organized system to follow up on non-respondents and recommends waiting 2 to 3

weeks before the follow-up. The latter should contain not only a reminder letter but also

a new copy of the instrument in case the instrument from the initial mailing was lost or

misplaced. Self-administered surveys were used throughout the Delphic process. Instead

of mailing the surveys as suggested by Babbie, the instruments were transmitted

electronically via e-mail or facsimile.

105

Strengths of Self-administered surveys

The self-administered survey is one of the least expensive means of acquiring

information from a group of individuals that is dispersed over a large geographic area.

The method can be very efficient and is less time consuming than interviewing. It allows

for a high degree of standardization; therefore it can facilitate the analysis of data and

makes it easier to draw comparisons. Since the researcher has limited contact with the

subjects, the possibility of researcher bias is reduced during the data collection phase:

survey research can be very reliable (Babbie, 1989, p. 254).

Weaknesses of Self-administered surveys

While standardization is one of the advantages of using self-administered

surveys, it is also a weakness: the instruments are usually designed to fit the majority.

Unlike observation-based methods that can allow for direct contact with the subjects and

accommodate design modifications based on changes in the environment, self-

administered survey methods offer very little flexibility. Surveys can be limiting in the

sense that they rely on the subjects’ perception; the quality of the data is therefore

dependent on the subject’s recollection of the information. Validity is determined not

only by the accuracy of the instrument (is it measuring what it is meant to measure?) but

also by the accuracy with which the subject fills out the survey. Triangulation of answers

can be a good measure of validity: the survey can be designed so that various items

measure the same concept.

106

Subjects and subject selection

Pre-Delphi

Many business marketing practitioners, educators and researchers were

consulted in the pre-Delphic stages of the study. All these individuals were selected

based on variants of purposeful sampling approaches (Patton, 1990, p. 169).

During the early phases of the study, the researcher met with 4 university

professors who were chosen because of their close ties to both academia and the business

world. These individuals were all key members of the ISBM who taught graduate classes

in business marketing, actively consulted for B-to-B firms in a various industries and

served as coaches in various areas of the field. All four faculty members were selected

based on a purposeful opportunistic criterion-based sampling technique. In an

opportunistic sampling scenario, the researcher “follows” the data; and the sample

emerges during fieldwork. “Opportunistic sampling takes advantage of whatever unfolds

as it unfolds” (Patton, 1990, p.179).

Later in the environmental scanning process, various individuals were contacted

via telephone, e-mail and fax to help clarify fuzzy issues that were discovered in the

scanning process. Most of the individuals contacted in that stage of the study were also

selected based on an opportunistic sampling approach.

Prior to the Delphi, the instrument was reviewed and refined by three panels

composed of business marketing educators and researchers. All the members of these

panels were attendees of ISBM educator consortium meetings that took place in Atlanta,

Georgia; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and State College, Pennsylvania. The educator’s

107

consortium is a special interest group composed of individuals who have an interest in B-

to-B market management education. The meetings were attended on average by a dozen

practitioners and educators. Most of the attending practitioners were in charge of

marketing training in their firm or business unit and used the consortium as a forum to

share their experiences and learn from their peers. The heterogeneous group of

attendees (who represented firms or business units of different sizes and from different

industries) gathered around a homogeneous goal: to learn, share and improve marketing

training and development. That forum provided an ideal medium to discuss the study

and fine-tune the research strategy. The meetings were also used to review and polish

the prelusive model that was used to generate the first iteration of the Delphic

instrument.

Prior to being sent to the Delphic panelists, the first iteration instrument was

reviewed by a class of 27 graduate students (mostly doctoral candidates) at the

Pennsylvania State University who had just completed a class on survey research

methods (WFED 597). During the last week of classes, the students were asked to review

the first iteration instrument and critique the clarity of the instructions, the functionality

of the layout and to identify flaws such as loaded questions, double barrel statements and

so forth. Even though the review was conducted in an open forum, the reviewers were

also asked to write their comments on their copy of the instrument and return it to the

researcher.

108

Delphi

Sample size

Various Delphic studies were examined in the literature review (Chapter 2).

These studies involved anywhere from a few experts to a few hundred. In their meta-

analysis of all the Delphic studies published in peer-reviewed journals, Rowe and Right

(1999) identified studies ranging from 3 to 80 experts with most of the studies involving

less than a dozen experts. According to Delbec, Van de Ven and Gustafson (1975), the

size of the Delphi panel is flexible. “With a homogeneous group of people, ten to fifteen

participants might be enough” (Delbec, Van de Ven and Gustafson, 1975, p. 89). Czinkota

and Ronkainen (1997) commented that studies conducted prior to theirs, support that

panels of more than 30 experts do not increase the generation of new ideas, but hinder

the process by limiting the amount of time available for the in-depth analysis of the ideas

generated. Cegles (1998) tells us that

There appears to be little or no agreement that exists concerning the optimum size of the Delphi panel of experts (Brockhaus & Mickelsen, 1977; Brooks, 1979; Helmer, 1983; Nash, 1978; Weaver 1970 & 1972). Delphi investigations have involved participant groups of fewer than 20 up to as many as several hundred participants (….) Brooks (1979) has shown that it is unlikely that improved results are achieved with groups of more than 25.” (p. 63)

Dalkey (1969) stated that group reliability was maximized and group error was reduced

if the panel was composed of at least 10 members. Furthermore, Patton (1990) suggests

that carefully conducted case studies can be more revealing and insightful than large-

scale probabilistic sampling approaches. He points out that such small studies have been

extensively conducted by the U. S. AID, the World Bank and General Accounting Office.

109

The composition of the Delphic panel varied from one iteration to the next. The

characteristics the panel that participated in the B-to-B competency study are described

in the next chapter.

Selection of panelists

Czinkota and Ronkainen (1997) state that the selection of the experts is critical to

the success of a Delphic study. They claim that it is important that the experts selected be

visionaries, have a clear understanding of the issues, and represent as many different

viewpoints as possible. Conversely, inundating the panel with ideas will not only hinder

the creative process but may decrease the experts’ participation in the Delphi. One of the

goals should be to reduce the dropout rate and complete the Delphic process with as

many experts as possible.

The panelists who participated in the B-to-B market management study were

selected using a purposive non-probabilistic dual-stage stratified sampling technique

(Fowler, 1993; Huck, 2000; Babbie, 1989) mixed with a snowball approach (Patton,

1990). Initially, 25 experts from each group (educators and practitioners) with expertise

in over a dozen areas within B-to-B market management (figure 3.7) were identified and

nominated with the help of the three directors of the ISBM and a few members of the

ISBM advisory committee. The various strata used for sampling were identified earlier

through the environmental scan and the literature review.

110

Sampling strata

Researcher and practitioner groups:

Brand management

Customer relationship management

Data collection and analysis

Distribution channels

E-business

Market research

Marketing communications

New product development

Positioning

Sales management

Segmentation

Strategic market management planning

Targeting Value and pricing

Additional strata in Researcher group:

Purchasing

Dean of marketing program in university setting

International marketing

Additional strata in Researcher group:

Purchasing VP marketing International marketing

Figure 3.7. Delphi process expert sampling strata. At least one of the experts nominated for the Delphi had an expertise in the following areas.

111

The stratified sampling approach allowed for a diverse panel of B-to-B experts.

The second step of the sampling process involved asking the 50 experts who had

previously been nominated to nominate additional possible members for the Delphi

panel. The second step generated some redundancies: a few of the panelists suggested

experts who had already been selected in the first stage of the sampling process. Overall,

the selection of the sample was spread over a period of three months at the end of which,

77 experts had accepted to participate. The Delphic panelists were divided into two

distinct groups: educators and practitioners. It should be noted that one of the expert

practitioners entered the study during the second iteration; therefore the subject did not

satisfy all of the requirements.

Educators. The educators were faculty members/researchers and satisfied the

following set of characteristics:

Nominated based on their “reputations”, commitment and contributions to

their field

Identified as visionary and willing to share views and ideas with peers

Published in their area of specialty

Currently conducting research in an area related to or impacting business-to-

business market management

Serving a significant consulting practice

Teaching in an area related to business-to-business market management and

identified as one of the specialties in figure 3.7

Willing to participate in all three iteration of the study

Holding a doctoral degree.

112

Practitioners. The practitioners were industry experts. These practitioners

satisfied the following characteristics:

Well respected by their peers and known to be exemplars in their field.

Nominated based on their “reputations” and success in the field.

Holding a leadership role inside a Business-to-Business firm at the SBU level

or higher

Engaged in some aspect of their firm’s or SBU’s business strategy

Participated in at least five large marketing interventions in a management

role

Holding a marketing title

Willing to participate in all three iteration of the study.

The Delphic iterations

The majority of the Delphi studies reviewed in chapter two used a two- or three-

iteration Delphi. A three-iteration modified Delphic approach was used in this study. The

first Delphic iteration was primarily qualitative in nature, whereas the last two were

mostly quantitatively based.

Rowe and Right (1999) conducted a meta-analysis of all the Delphic studies of

“significant quality” published in peer-reviewed journals and books based on queries

from nine databases (ABI inform global, Applied Science and Technology Index, ERIC,

Transport, Econlit, General Science Index, INSPEC, Sociofile and Psychlit). The authors

excluded unpublished Ph.D. theses, technical reports and conference papers from the

113

analysis, claiming that it was difficult to ascertain the quality of such studies. In total, 27

research papers were examined with studies ranging from 2 rounds up to 7 rounds, with

some of the studies involving multiple Delphi panels:

9 of the articles involved a two-round Delphi

9 of the articles involved a three-round Delphi

4 of the articles involved a five-round Delphi

3 of the articles involved a four-round Delphi

2 of the articles involved a six-round Delphi

1 of the articles involved a seven-round Delphi.

A total of 28 Delphic panels were identified and about two thirds of the studies used

either a two- or a three-round Delphi. Overall, the median number of rounds was three.

The latter is consistent with Delbecq, Van de Ven and Gustafson (1977) who layout the

design for a three-iteration Delphic approach (p. 86-105). They cover the various aspects

of Delphi but only describe the process for a 3-iteration Delphic approach.

Only one research paper was found on the number of rounds to be used in a

Delphi. Erffmeyer, Erffmeyer and Lane (1986) used 72 undergraduate students to

conduct a study on the optimal number of times a Delphic instrument should be iterated;

and determined that stability was reached after the 4th iteration. Erffmeyer et al. warn

that “several variables could affect the appropriate number of iterations, including

composition of the participant group, the nature of the problem, and the type of feedback

provided to the participants” (p. 120). Given that the study was based on non-experts

reaching consensus, the usefulness of the 4th round can be questioned. In the B-to-B

competency study, it was assumed that in a Delphic panel consisting of experts from a

particular field, stability is more than likely to be reached before the 4th round; the fact

114

that this three-round Delphic approach was preceded by a series of data gathering efforts

(interviews, expert panels and literature reviews), may moreover make the fourth

iteration impractical and perhaps, superfluous. Furthermore, time and resource

constraints would have made it difficult to conduct a 4th round. It can be argued that the

Delphi-hybrid approach used in this study is comparable, if not more thorough than a 4-

round Delphi composed of a homogeneous panel:

instead of one major source of data (the Delphic panel), data were collected through

multiple sources (the Delphic panel, review panels, the literature review and the

environmental scan)

instead of a homogeneous group of panelists, the panel was stratified to include

two main groups (practitioners, educators) and over 14 sub-specialties within

each group.

Delphi preparations

Delphi was used in conjunction with other methodologies. Some of these

methods were used prior to the first iteration and they were discussed earlier in this

chapter. Figure 3.8 depicts a detailed diagram of the inductive hybrid Delphi process.

115

Figure 3.8. Modified 3-iteration Delphi method. Detailed diagram highlighting the main steps of the inductive modified Delphi process.

Post-Delphi processes Final report

- controversial competencies - Functional model - Emergent Model

Request for comments on the report (especially on the controversial competencies)

Pre-Delphi processes

Administrative requirements (human subjects issues, letters of support etc)

Design of supporting materials (handouts, study’s Website etc)

Selection of expert panelists

Synthesis of Prelusive Model

Prelusive model compared to 6 marketing skills inventories (shared confidentially by B-to-B firms)

Design and assessment of 1rst iteration instrument (content, layout, directions etc)

Second iteration (highlights) - Experts rated competencies (1-6 Likert) - Experts submitted additional comments on competencies - Quantitative data are collected and analyzed separately

for each expert group (practitioners and researchers) using: medians, modes and interquartile ranges

- Various measures of internal consistency were assessed using a coefficient of reliability (i.e. Cronbach’s Alpha)

- Two separate instruments drafted one for each expert group (based on quantitative data: level of consensus within a group)

Third iteration (highlights) - Experts re-rated competencies (1-6 Likert) with lower

consensus taking into account their group’s statistics - Experts given the opportunity to submit additional

comments on competencies - Various measures of internal consistency were assessed

using a coefficient of reliability* (i.e. Cronbach’s Alpha)

*Done with caution

Final Analysis - Identification of controversial competencies based

on Mann-Whitney U test (inter-group consensus) - Measurement of intra group consensus based on

dispersion (i.e. interquartile range) and central tendency (i.e. median and mode)

- Identification of competency kernel - Identification of lowest rated competencies - Stratification of competencies into emergent levels - Tuning of final functional competency model - Synthesis of emergent model

First iteration (highlights) - Prelusive Model reviewed by entire Delphi panel - All input analyzed using thematic content analysis - Analysis reviewed by subject matter expert - Preliminary functional Delphic model synthesized - Second iteration instrument drafted - Instrument reviewed by seasoned professional

business marketing editor - Second iteration instrument assessed and tested

116

In preparation for the Delphi process, a proposal was reviewed by the Pennsylvania State

University’s Office of Regulatory Compliance. The study was first approved for a period

of one year; and 11 months later, an extension was granted for another year. The

approval and extension letters are located in appendix B. Prior to initiating the Delphi,

all expert participants were provided with an informed consent statement (also included

in appendix B). In order to increase participation and in an effort to reduce inquiries for

clarification from the Delphi nominees, the researcher constructed an informative

website that provided basic information about the study. The site covered various

aspects of the research and was built based on questions that recurred during the

environmental scan and the multiple presentations at the ISBM consortium meetings. A

printout of the website is provided in Appendix C.

The Delphi panel nominees were contacted primarily via e-mail and provided

with the website’s URL for additional information about the study. The researcher’s

contact information (e-mail, telephone numbers, fax numbers and addresses) was also

provided. In addition, a dedicated telephone line with voicemail and a dedicated fax line

were made available for any questions regarding the study. Figure 3.9 provides a

timeline of the main components of the Delphi process.

117

November 01

Last iteration #1 instrument is received Iteration #1 is closed

Iteration #2 survey instruments are e-mailed - Reminders are mailed 2 weeks later - Thank you/confirmation messages are e-mailed once a week

Last iteration #2 instrument is received Iteration 2 is closed

Preliminary report is e-mailed to Delphi panelists

Iteration #3 survey instruments are e-mailed - Reminders are mailed 2 weeks later Thank you/confirmation messages are e-mailed once a Week - Last iteration #3 instrument is received Iteration 3 is closed

Iteration #1 survey instruments are e-mailed - Reminders are mailed 2 weeks later - Thank you/confirmation messages are e-mailed once a week

Final round of nominations of Delphi panelists

September 02

August 02

July 02

June 02

May 02

April 02

March 02

February 02

January 02

December 01

Figure 3.9. Timeline of the Delphic process from the final nomination process to the generation of the preliminary report.

118

Iteration (round) one

An email was sent to the nominees who had agreed to participate in the study.

They were provided with a World Wide Web link that would allow them to access the

first iteration of the Delphi process. Prior to downloading the first iteration instrument,

the panelists were required to read an informed consent form; and only after

acknowledging that they had done so, were they allowed to download the survey. The

informed consent was integrated into the website that had been created for the study. At

anytime during the process, the panelists could link to other sections of the site

explaining the various aspects of the study. The contents of the website were printed out

and are located in appendix C.

While going over the first iteration instrument (available in appendix D), the

panelists were asked to envision a star performer, the best of the best, an exceptionally

talented and outstandingly competent B-to-B market manager; and the skills, abilities,

attitudes or knowledge such an individual would exhibit. They were asked to base their

comments on trends, and draw from their professional experience or their current

practice. Rather than asking them to react to a blank sheet, they were provided with the

prelusive model, a basic and preliminary set of competencies that was generated from

the environmental scanning process and the review panels. The panelists were warned

that the prelusive model was deliberately not comprehensive: their help and expertise

were needed to develop an inclusive yet concise set of competencies. As a first step, they

were asked to browse through the entire list of skills in order to gain a general sense of

119

the material. Secondly, they were requested to focus on the future and while considering

each competency set, they were asked to type their comments in the suggestion box:

1. to indicate if any of the competencies were improperly stated or inadequately

grouped, to reword the competency statements they felt had been worded

incorrectly or that should be defined more specifically, and to specify if certain

competencies should be collapsed into one.

2. to suggest any other skills, abilities, attitudes or knowledge they felt should be

included

3. to indicate if any of the competencies should be eliminated (with a very brief

explanation). They were reminded that the study’s goal was to come up with a list

that is inclusive but as streamlined as possible.

The panelists were asked to return the survey via facsimile or e-mail or to contact the

researcher if they needed special assistance. Four of the panelists needed special

accommodations and did contact the investigator.

The researcher analyzed the qualitative data collected using thematic content

analysis. The process involved a redundant, iterative and sometimes recursive algorithm.

The data were divided into three categories: (1) general procedural comments, (2) new

competency statements and (3) reformulated competency statements. Each datum

within the categories was coded to identify (1) its original location in the instrument, (2)

the cluster where the comment was inserted and (3) the panelist who generated it.

Initially, the data were analyzed regardless of the original clustering scheme to identify

emergent themes and concepts; which were then compared to the original clusters and

new clusters were created when needed. Multiple textbooks were consulted and online

databases were searched to clarify confusing or complex concepts. A few cases of

120

semantic obfuscation made the task complicated and time consuming: a few

practitioners used terms that are trademarked by consulting firms and the researcher

had to conduct searches to find the definition of these terms. In the advent of confusion,

a panelist who submitted an obscure comment was contacted via telephone or e-mail

and asked to elaborate on her/his statement.

Once all the new themes and concepts were identified, they were compared with

the original clusters. The researcher then tentatively devised new clusters and with the

assistance of a subject matter expert (the Executive Director of the ISBM), the tentative

clustering scheme was reviewed and a new clustering scheme was formulated. The new

clusters were presented to a group of faculty members and practitioners attending an

ISBM Educator’s Consortium meeting in Atlanta, Georgia. Some of the attendees opted

to verbally share their comments whereas others wrote them down on their handouts. A

few of the attendees contacted the researcher via e-mail a few days after the meeting to

submit additional comments. All the inputs were used to improve the model and once

they were incorporated into the new model, the final product was reviewed with the

Executive Director of the ISBM. The new model was used to generate the second

iteration instrument, which was field-tested and reviewed by 4 subjects; and then edited

by a seasoned business-to-business marketing editor.

121

Iteration (round) two

The second iteration instrument (available in appendix D) was distributed

through e-mail (none of the panelists opted to receive the instrument via facsimile). The

purpose of this iteration was to rate the competencies by their essentiality to superior

market management performance. The panelists were asked to rate 153 competencies

using a 6-point Likert-type scale (Babbie, 1989) ranging from “low importance” to

“critical”. Furthermore, the dichotomous scale (Rudolf, 1999, p. 84) divided the rankings

into two categories to identify (1) core competencies and (2) supplemental competencies.

The panelists were asked to: firstly, browse through the entire list of

competencies in order to gain a general sense of the material; secondly, to envision a star

performer, the best of the best, an exceptionally talented and outstandingly competent

B-to-B market manager; and the skills, abilities, attitudes or knowledge such an

individual would exhibit. It was clarified that depending on the size of the firm, these

competencies may be spread over multiple job functions (e.g. marketing manager,

marketing research manager, marketing communications manager). While considering

each competency, they were asked to:

1. Rate each item by placing an “X” in the appropriate space using the assigned

6-point scale (where 1= least important and 6= most important). In addition,

ratings 1, 2 or 3 identified the competency as being “supplemental” whereas

ratings 4, 5 or 6 classified the competency as “core”.

2. Mark the box labeled “NR” (No Rating) and provide a very brief explanation

in the comments box if they chose not to rate a competency.

122

3. Return the completed surveys via e-mail or facsimile.

The responses were treated as ordinal level data and analyzed using the

quantitative methods described later in this chapter. The median, the mode and the

interquartile scores were calculated for each of the competencies and for each expert

group. The median and the mode were both used to measure central tendency and the

interquartile scores described the level of dispersion within the ratings of a competency

by a specific group. For practical purposes and in an effort to shrink the 8-page, 153-item

instrument, only the competencies for which consensus had not been reached were sent

to be re-rated in the third iteration. Consensus was measured through central tendency

and dispersion. The third iteration competencies were selected based on a very simple

algorithm:

Step 1. The median and the mode were compared. If the absolute difference

between the two was less than or equal to 0.5, the researcher moved to step 2;

otherwise, the competency was labeled to be part of the third iteration (please

note that the mode values are integers: a difference of 0.5 only occurs when

the number of data points are even and the median is calculated by averaging

the two middle points). All cases that involved multimodal distributions were

labeled for the third iteration.

Step 2. The interquartile range (IQR) was measured (Q3-Q1). If the IQR was

larger than 1, the competency was sent to the third iteration.

Two new instruments were generated: one for the practitioners and the other for the

educators.

123

Iteration (round) three

The third iteration instrument was also disseminated through e-mail. The results

from the second iteration were used to design two separate surveys: one for the expert

practitioners and the other for the academics (available in appendix D). The analysis of

the data showed that within each group, consensus was reached for about a third of the

competencies rated during the second iteration. This round only covered the

competencies for which consensus was not clearly reached. The panelists were asked to

rate these competencies once more, this time taking into consideration the central

tendency and the dispersion of the scores reported by their group. They were requested

to rate the competencies again using the same 6-point Likert-type scale that was used in

the previous round. Next to each competency, in the ratings area, they were provided

with the following information (see figure 3.10):

Shaded boxes highlighting the interquartile range (dispersion). The latter was

labeled “consensus range” in the survey instrument.

Underlined box(es) indicating the mode and the median (central tendency)

within the “consensus range”.

In the example in figure 3.10, the measure of dispersion (IQR) for the competency is

[4,6] with central tendency (median and mode) at 5 and 6.

While re-rating each competency, the panelists were asked to:

1. Note the “consensus range” (shaded) and the central tendency (underlined) for

the competency while keeping in mind that these 2 measures were provided as a

guide and that they may choose to agree or disagree with them.

124

2. Rate each item by placing an “X” in the appropriate space using the assigned 6-

point scale (where 1= least important and 6= most important). Furthermore,

ratings 1, 2 or 3 identified the competency as being “supplemental” (nice to have

but not critical) and ratings 4, 5 or 6 classified the competency as “core”.

Figure 3.10. Example of the layout used in the third iteration to depict the Interquartile Range (shaded) and the median and the mode (underlined boxes).

A. Marketing Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Select marketing objectives to be supported by Marketing Research

The panelists were asked to return the instruments one last time via e-mail or facsimile.

Many of the panelists chose to return their surveys via fax. The data were analyzed using

quantitative methods described later in this chapter. After the results were analyzed, the

panelists were e-mailed a copy of the preliminary results from the analysis.

Survey design

Four different surveys were used during the Delphic process: iteration 1, iteration

2, iteration 3 (educators) and iteration 3 (practitioners) and they are all available in

appendix D. In an effort to improve the surveys’ design and facilitate the data gathering

process, the instruments were devised while taking the following into account:

Short-term processing capacity of an adult. According to Dembo (1991, p.270) the

short-term information processing capacity of an adult is limited: an adult can process

five to nine pieces of information at a time but chunking or grouping the pieces increases

the amount of information that can be handled. Since the panelists had to handle a

125

multitude of competencies (over 150 during the second iteration), it was deemed

necessary to break the competencies in a way that was functional. With the exception of

three clusters (K, H, and D) in the second iteration, all the data were broken down into

groups of less than nine items (see iteration 2 instrument in appendix D). It would have

been impractical to breakdown the aforementioned three clusters without disrupting the

“flow” of information.

Readability of the typeface. The survey instruments were distributed electronically. It

was assumed that many of the participants would complete them in front of their

monitors. In order to facilitate the reading process, the “Verdana” typeface was used.

Designed for Microsoft, specifically to be used with computer screens, Verdana is a true-

type font that can be read at 4-point in the Microsoft Windows environment (Will-

Harris, 2000). Verdana was used in all four surveys.

Clarity of the directions. In order to ensure that the surveys were completed properly, it

was pivotal that the panelists clearly understand the directions. All three iterations

required that the experts complete tasks that were somewhat complex. During the design

of each of the instruments, the directions were drafted by the researcher and tested on a

variety of non-business professionals to ensure that the instructions were clear and

concise. Once the directions were deemed acceptable, they were reviewed with a subject

matter expert. Additionally, the directions for the first survey instrument were reviewed

by a group of survey researchers at the Pennsylvania University and by a group of faculty

members and practitioners attending a meeting of the ISBM’s educators’ consortium.

The directions for the second iteration were reviewed by a seasoned business-to-business

marketing editor.

126

Compatibility of the media and the format. All the surveys were transmitted as

Microsoft Word documents. Since the documents were meant to be opened by panelists

in various corners of the world, the instruments were tested on various versions of Word

running on various platforms MSWindows (Word 95, 97, 2000 and XP) and MacOS

(Word 98 and 2001). The only slight glitch noted was with the third iteration

instrument: when opened in MSWord 95, the shaded areas were darker but still legible

when printed. Furthermore, the researcher faxed a copy of each instrument to ensure

that it would be readable after being transmitted through the fax machine.

Quantitative analysis

The panelists’ ratings from the last two Delphic iterations were analyzed using

SPSS 10.7 and the data were examined from various perspectives. Due to the nature of

the study, the researcher deemed it prudent to treat the quantitative data at the ordinal

level. Furthermore, the data are inherently qualitative and subjective, and they measure

concepts that are heuristic in nature.

All the data collected was treated at the ordinal level using non-inferential and

non-parametric approaches. Agreement within the groups was measured for each

competency at the second and third iterations to assess the level of consensus.

Differences within groups were measured to identify controversial competencies.

Competencies were clustered in order of importance and a competency “kernel” was

identified. Furthermore, Interrater reliability was measured to assess the consistency of

the ratings. Figure 3.11 provides an overview of the quantitative methods of analysis.

These analyses will be reviewed in detail in the next chapter.

127

Variable # of variables

Type States Level

Expert group 1 Independent 2 states: practitioner or educator

nominal

Competency rating 153 Dependent

a) 6 states: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 (Likert-type scale) 1=least important and 6= most important

b) 2 states: supplemental (1-3) or core (4-6)

ordinal

What was measured? How was it measured?

Descriptives Frequencies, bar graphs, clustered bar graphs

Central tendency Median and Mode

Dispersion Interquartile Range (IQR), Percentiles, semi-interquartile range, box-and-whisker

Consensus (level of agreement WITHIN groups)

2 ways: (1) Interquartile Range AND Median AND Mode (2) Kendall coefficient of concordance (also alternative to interrater consistency rating)

Controversy (differences BETWEEN groups)

Mann-Whitney U test

Competency rankings (1) The location of the IQR (based on the values of Q1 and Q3)

(2) Mean ranks (Kendall’s W Ranks were used -SPSS 10.7)

Interrater reliability Intraclass correlation (Cronbach alpha)

What tools were used?

SPSS 10.7 and MS Excel 2000

Figure 3.11. Description of primary post Delphi quantitative methods

128

Summary

This chapter provided an overview of the prospective naturalistic inquiry

methodology that was used to build the business-to-business market management

future-oriented competency model. The modified hybrid three-iteration Delphi

methodology was described and its various components analyzed. The study began with

an environmental scan that allowed the researcher to establish parameters and

strategically plan for the various aspects of the study. The environmental scan was

followed by a variety of review panels that generated the first iteration instrument, which

was refined through the Delphic process.

Chapter 4

Findings

The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking. Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

130

Introduction

The design of the competency model entailed three main steps: construction, de-

construction and reconstruction. The construction phase involved all the stages from the

project’s inception until the end of the last iteration of the Delphi. During the process,

over one hundred and fifty competencies were identified then rated, and the preliminary

competency model drafted. Over the next pages, the model will be deconstructed and its

various parts analyzed. In the next chapter, it will be reconstructed based on the results

of that analysis.

Chapter four will go over the findings from the last two Delphic iterations where

153 competencies were identified, arranged into 17 functional clusters and rated by a

Delphic panel composed of educators/researchers and practitioners (the basics of the

modified hybrid-Delphi are listed in figure 4.1). Since a large number of competencies

were identified, the data will be analyzed and broken down into a series of “perspectives”

with more manageable chunks of data. Two of the definitions of the word “perspective”

(from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, third edition) will

apply:

- “the ability to perceive things in their actual interrelations or comparative importance”

- “the relationship of aspects of a subject to each other and to a whole”

Perspective 1.The first perspective will look at the instruments that were utilized to

collect the data. A coefficient of reliability will be used to measure inter-item reliability.

Perspective 2. The second perspective will look at the experts who generated the

competencies. Descriptive data on all the participants will be organized and examined;

inter-rater reliability will be measured. In a preliminary attempt to estimate consensus

131

building, inter-rater reliability for the second and third iterations will be tabulated for

the third iteration (please note that the latter is done with caution).

Perspective 3. The third perspective will look at all 153 items to identify the

controversial competencies. The differences between the two groups will be examined

and the competencies on which the two groups diverged will be isolated.

Perspective 4. Once the controversial components are isolated from the rest of the

original pool of competencies, the remaining items will be analyzed. The fourth

perspective will identify and analyze the highest rated competencies in the model: the

“kernel” competencies.

Perspective 5. After the kernel and controversial competencies are identified, the

remaining competencies will be analyzed to isolate the rest of the core competencies. The

latter will be further subdivided into categories that emerge from the data.

Perspective 6. Perspective six will look at the residual competencies. These lowest

rated cases will be analyzed and clustered into categories.

Perspective 7.The final part of the analysis will look at this modified Delphi process as

a consensus-building tool: the evolution of consensus within the two groups and between

the last two iterations will be examined. While perspective 2 examined the data in the

early phases of the quantitative process, this analysis will take a holistic approach and

provide snapshots of the consensus building process.

132

Purpose of the Delphi To identify and forecast the competencies that will define exceptional business-to-business market managers over the next five years

Research model Three-iteration modified Delphi where the contents of the first iteration instrument were generated prior to the Delphic process (more information is available in chapter 3)

Population under study The Delphi panel

Panelists selection Purposive non-probabilistic dual-stage stratified sampling technique mixed with a snowball approach

Sample size Dynamic (iteration#1= 45 panelists, it#2= 36 and it#3= 31)

Data collection 4 survey instruments (available in Appendix D)

Concepts and variables Iteration #1: 18 clusters Iteration #2: 17 clusters, 153 competencies Iteration #3: 17 clusters, one third of the it#2 competencies (each group)

Measurement Iterations #2 and #3: 6-level dichotomous Likert-type scale

Unit of analysis Competency

Survey administration Surveys distributed and collected electronically

Figure 4.1. Basics of the modified hybrid-Delphi process.

Perspective one

In order to better appreciate the data and the approach used to analyze them, it is

important to understand the means that was used to collect these data. The first

perspective focuses on the survey instruments. The instrument used in the first Delphic

iteration was developed over a period of more than a year. The pre-Delphi phase was

described in more detail in the previous chapter.

133

Evolution of the survey instruments

Various surveys were used in this study to collect both qualitative and

quantitative data. The information was utilized to create and then refine the competency

model. Three climactic points can be identified in the data collection process:

1. The environmental scan. During the last phases of the environmental scan, prior to

the review panels, 37 concepts were identified and grouped into four main segments:

Market management (13 concepts), Management acumen (11 concepts), Analytical

competencies (6 concepts) and Leadership (7 concepts).

2. First iteration. By the end of a series of instrument review panels conducted mostly

through the ISBM educator consortium meetings, 13 of the original 37 concepts had

been developed into competency clusters. Many of the remaining concepts were

reworded and integrated as competency statements into one of the 18 clusters that

comprised the first iteration instrument.

3. Second iteration. The second iteration instrument listed 153 competency statements

classified into 17 clusters: 3 new clusters had been added; 5 of the clusters from the

first instrument had been restructured; and 4 of the original groupings had been

broken down and their constituent competency statements redistributed into the

other clusters or eliminated from the model (the changes are depicted in figure

4.2). All the clusters were fundamentally refined; competency statements were

reorganized and reformulated to become more concise.

134

Fundamentally restructured clusters

Label in iteration 1 survey Label in iteration 2 survey

Data collection and analysis Data management

Strategic market management planning Market planning

New product development New offering development

Personal attributes Marketing leadership

Sales management Sales integration

New clusters

Managing market offerings

Marketing leadership

Business acumen

Redistributed clusters

Brand and identity management

Communication skills

Technical savvy

Personal attributes

Figure 4.2. Second iteration instrument competency cluster changes.

Internal consistency of scale

In order to validate the survey instruments, the second iteration ratings were

used to calculate the internal consistency of the scale. Cronbach’s Alpha (Portney and

Watkins, 2000; Huck, 2000) was computed for each the 17 clusters and the findings are

listed in table 4.1. Almost all the clusters had alpha values well over the .70 acceptable

135

minimum suggested by Klimczak & Wedman (1997) and Nunally & Bernstein (1994);

and the .75 measure recommended by McMillan (1996).

Cluster N of items N of cases Alpha

A 5 35 .7843

B 8 34 .7235

C 10 33 .8115

D 12 34 .9047

E 14 22 .8777

F 8 36 .8623

G 8 33 .9029

H 13 30 .8774

I 11 34 .8661

J 8 34 .8716

K 12 30 .8778

L 8 32 .7706

M 9 34 .9294

N 8 29 .8007

O 6 32 .8774

P 8 35 .8855

Q 5 34 .5362

Table 4.1. Cronbach Alpha values for each cluster of the second iteration instrument

136

Cluster Q reported a low Alpha; the latter is in all probability due to the fact that unlike

the other clusters, it is made up of a heteroclite set of competencies. The components of

cluster Q are listed in figure 4.3.

Q. Business Acumen

1 Justify marketing decisions in financial terms

2 Understand global market dynamics

3 Ensure that all functions within the organization understand the strategic role of marketing

4 Address not only customer but also investor communications

5 Recognize how technology impacts B-to-B marketing processes (i.e. markets, sales, channels, CRM)

Figure 4.3. Cluster Q components.

Perspective Two

The second perspective examined the population from which the quantitative

data were obtained. This analysis begins with a description of the two groups of panelists

followed by an investigation of the panelists’ rating patterns.

Delphi panel description

Seventy-seven nominees were invited to participate in the study. A few of the

subjects who had previously consented to be part of the Delphi panel rescinded their

offer to participate for a variety of reasons, the most popular being time constraints.

Forty-five subjects completed and returned the first iteration survey, thirty-six returned

137

the second iteration instrument and thirty-one completed the third iteration. Overall,

attrition was low, during the transition from the first round to the second, the panel was

reduced to 80% of its original size (20% attrition rate) and 86% of the second round

participants returned their third iteration instruments (14% attrition rate). A more

detailed description of the composition of the panel at each of the three iterations is

depicted in figure 4.4.

The subjects represented three continents and a wide range of expertise. Figures

4.5 and 4.6 provide a listing of the titles held by the expert panelists who participated in

the Delphi. Most of the educators/researchers also worked as consultants and a few of

them opted to submit their consulting titles. It should also be noted that the participants’

titles changed during the course of the study, some of the panelists changed employment

while a few others moved into consulting. The panelists’ number of years of experience in

their field was collected during the second iteration and the information is charted in

table 4.2.

Panelists’ # years of experience

Mean Median Mode Percentiles Max Min 75 25

All 24.1 25 30 30 16.5 40 7

Practitioners 22.1 26 30* 30 11.5 35 7

Exp

ert

Gro

up

Educators/ Researchers 26.6 25 24 32 20 40 15

* multi-modal

Table 4.2. Delphi panelists’ years of experience in their field as recorded on the second iteration survey instrument.

138

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

nu

mb

er o

f p

anel

ists

Fig. 4.4. Delphi panel composition at each of the three iterations

Practitioners 27 22 18

Educators 18 14 13

Attrition 9 5

Iteration 1 Iteration 2 Iteration 3

Iteration 2

61%

39%

Iteration 1

60%

40%

Iteration 3

58%

42%

139

Delphi panelists’ professional titles

(practitioners)

CEO The INSIGHT Group

Chairman National Analysts

Consultant Forerunner Consulting

Director Marketing & Communications Diagnostics

Industrial Marketing Consulting Lead National Institute of Standards and Technology/Manufacturing Extension Partnership

Manager, Market Development - Liquid Coatings PPG Industries, Inc.

Manager, Customer Strategy and Business Research Eastman Chemical Company

Managing Partner Marketing Andersen

Marketing competency manager Dupont

Partner Breakthrough Marketing Technology

President Robert Lamons & Associates

Principal Informed Decisions Group, Ltd.

Product Sales Manager - Benzene, Toluene, Cyclohexane ExxonMobil Chemical Company

Sales Director Shell Chemical Company

Senior Executive Officer SDR Consulting

Senior Market Manager Dow Chemical

Senior Marketing Manager Dow Chemical

Senior Pricer and Director Strategic Pricing Group, Inc.

Senior VP Corp and Investor Communications Infineon Technologies AG, Munich

Vice Chairman Ridgewood Development Corporation

Vice President Global Marketing Research Unisys Corporation

Vice President- Administration Elrick & Lavidge

Vice President Corp. Marketing and Communications PPG Industries

Vice President Sales & Marketing -Alloy Steel The Timken Corp.

VP Corporate Marketing Corning, Inc

VP Online Marketing & Communications Electronic Data Systems - EDS

VP-Vertical Markets Corporate Express

(N/A) Bellack Consulting

** The participation of the aforementioned individuals does not constitute their agreement with all the results of this study **

Figure 4.5. Delphi panelists’ professional titles (practitioners).

140

Delphi panelists’ professional titles

(educators/researchers)

President Agora, Inc.

Alvin H. Celmens Professor of Entrepreneurial Studies Pennsylvania State University

Associate Professor of Marketing Pennsylvania State University

CEO Product Development Inst. Inc.

Consultant Monitor

Dean of the faculty ESSEC, France

Distinguished Research Professor of Management Science Pennsylvania State University

Ford Professor of Marketing Arizona State University

Jack R. Crosby Regent's Chair in Business Professor of Marketing and Management Science & Information Systems (MSIS) The University of Texas at Austin

James L. Knight Professor of Advertising University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Jonas H. Anchel Professor of Marketing Research Director, eBusiness Research Center Penn State University

National Australia Bank Professor of Marketing Australian Graduate School of Management

Professor of Business Marketing Wake Forest University

Professor Harold E. Fearon Chair of Purchasing Arizona State University

Professor University of Auckland

Professor, Marketing Australian Graduate School of Management

Van Leer Professor of Industrial Marketing INSEAD (France)

William L. Ford Distinguished Professor of Marketing Northwestern University

** The participation of the aforementioned individuals does not constitute their agreement withal the results of this study **

Figure 4.6. Delphi panelists’ professional titles (educators/researchers).

141

141

Panelists’ rating patterns

Overall, the entire panel rated the competencies highly, this could be due to the

extensive process that was used to generate then refine the competencies. By the end of

the second iteration, the model had been in development for about two years. Figure

4.7a depicts a clustered bar graph of over 5,500 ratings that were collected at the end of

the second iteration (36 experts x 153 competencies) and over 4,500 valid data points

gathered through the third iteration (31 experts x 153 competencies). During both

rounds, the percentage of competencies for which there were no responses remained the

same (1.5%). The most remarkable aspect of the distribution is the fact that it was

negatively skewed for both iterations, but the third iteration is leptokurtic due to an

increase in the number of competencies that were rated “5”. Aside from the latter, the

shape of the distribution did not change much from the second to the third iteration.

Another interesting detail that was mentioned earlier is the fact that in both iterations,

approximately 80% of the ratings were located in the upper half of the scale (4, 5 and 6),

as a whole, dispersion was very low. In both iterations, the median and the mode were

five.

The same type of clustered bar graph was generated for the practitioners (figure

4.7b) and the educators/researchers (figure 4.7c). As one can notice, the overall

distribution of the ratings did not change much from the second to the third iteration for

the educators/ researchers. On the other hand, the distribution of the ratings did change

for the practitioners: in the second iteration, the distribution of the scores was somewhat

mesokurtic while in the third iteration, it was very much leptokurtic with a pronounced

peek at the rating five. It can be concluded that the practitioners accounted for the

142

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

% o

f to

tal d

istr

ibu

tio

n

Rating

Figure 4.7a. Distribution of the ratings from all the competencies by the by all panelists

Iteration 2 0.9% 3.4% 14.6% 22.0% 30.8% 26.7% 1.5%

Iteration 3 0.3% 2.2% 10.8% 21.6% 39.4% 24.3% 1.5%

1 2 3 4 5 6 NR

@ end of Iteration 2: 5,508 ratings (36 experts x 153 competencies)@ end of Iteration 3: 4,745 ratings (31 experts x 153 competencies)

143

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

% o

f to

tal d

istr

ibu

tio

n

Ratings

Figure 4.7b. Distribution of the ratings from all the competencies by the Educators/Researchers

Iteration 2 0.48% 2.05% 13.25% 22.66% 34.12% 26.32% 1.13%

Iteration 3 0.22% 2.80% 12.56% 22.62% 37.69% 23.67% 0.44%

1 2 3 4 5 6 NR

144

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

45.00%

% o

f to

tal d

istr

ibu

tio

n

Ratings

Figure 4.7c. Distribution of the ratings from all the competencies by the Practitioners

Iteration 2 1.21% 4.39% 15.53% 21.60% 28.38% 27.05% 1.84%

Iteration 3 0.30% 1.26% 8.40% 20.16% 41.73% 25.24% 2.92%

1 2 3 4 5 6 NR

145

leptokurtic distribution of the overall scores mentioned earlier. During the third

iteration, the practitioners tended to sway toward the middle point of the “core”

competency range: the rating “5”.

Interrater reliability

This section of perspective two will focus on Interrater Reliability measured using

the Intraclass Correlation reliability Coefficient (ICC). The intraclass correlation was

measured using the ICC(3,k) two-way mixed model average measure reliability (Yaffee,

1998; Nichols, 1998; Huck, 2000). In all the cases, the Delphi panelists were a fixed

effect and the only judges of interest. ICC was estimated at the end of iterations two and

three for all the competencies. ICC (3,36), ICC(3,14) and ICC (3,22) were calculated

respectively in the second iteration for all the experts, for the educators/researchers and

for the practitioners. ICC (3,31), ICC(3,13) and ICC (3,18) were calculated respectively in

the third iteration for all the experts, for the educators/researchers and for the

practitioners. The intraclass correlation model was used with the third iteration data

with caution: since the raters were provided with the measures of central tendency and

dispersion for their group, the ratings collected in the third iteration were no longer

independent observations. The measure was used to simply provide a direction and

estimate the relative intensity of interrater reliability from one quantitative Delphic

iteration to the next. Table 4.3 provides a summary of the ICC.

146

Both groups Educators Practitioners

Model ICC estimate Model ICC estimate Model ICC estimate

Iteration #2 ICC (3,36) .8409 ICC (3,14) .6500 ICC (3,22) .7610

Iteration #3* ICC (3,31) .9326 ICC (3,13) .8901 ICC (3,18) .8898

* done with caution Table 4.3. Interrater Correlations for the Delphi panel. The interrater correlations were higher for the practitioners in the second iteration but turned out to be about the same at the end of the third iteration.

Measuring consensus

The remaining perspectives will analyze the competencies based on the ratings by

the two expert groups. The Delphi panelists were asked to rate the competencies on a 1-6

Likert-type scale with the rating “1” identifying the competency as less important and

rating “6” identifying the competency as most important. Furthermore, ratings 4-6

labeled the competency as “core”.

In order to analyze the level of consensus in each group, the researcher opted to

use the Interquartile Range (IQR). The IQR is an ordinal-level measure of variability that

“indicates how much spread exists among the middle 50 percent of the scores” (Huck,

2000, p.40). The IQR is measured as Q3-Q1 and given that the scale has six levels, the

maximum possible value of the IQR is 5 (6-1). Since the data are being treated at the

ordinal level, the majority of the values used in this analysis will tend to be integers. For

the rest of the analysis, IRQ≤1 will be labeled as “high consensus”, 1<IRQ≤2 as

“moderate consensus” and IQR>2 as “low consensus”.

Box-and-whisker-plots were be used in most of the analyses to describe the IQR

and the level of consensus. The box-plots were created using SPSS 10.7 and they

identified both outlier and extreme ratings:

147

the box depic

Outliers (“o” case 1.5 and 3 x lengths

t r lo ge of t

pper or lower edge of the box.

All values in the box-plot were rounded to the nearest 0.5.

Perspective three

ted the IQR

) were identified as s with values between bo

from he upper o wer ed he box.

Extremes (“*”) were identified as cases with more than 3 box lengths from the

u

ed in the third iteration as the “consensus range”) was

used to

The third perspective examined the ratings for all 153 competencies in order to

identify the competencies on which the two groups diverged. In this analysis, the

location of the IQR range (describ

measure the importance of a competency within a group of experts; with the

median score and the mode used as indicators of central tendency. Using a range

[Q1,Q3] instead of a single measure (median or mode) was preferred because it took into

account not only a single measure of central tendency but the middle 50% of all the

ratings. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the ratings between the two

groups and identify the competencies for which consensus was not achieved (inter-group

consensus). The results of the test are listed in table 4.4.

148

Competency Mann-Whitney U Wilcoxon W Z Sig. (2-tailed)

N5 20 191 -4.019 .000

H8 25 196 -3.805 .000

H6 43 274 -3.520 .000

N1 29 200 -3.273 .001

A3 40 211 -3.067 .002

D4 59 312 -2.990 .003

C3 63 316 -2.871 .004

L6 54 225 -2.840 .005

M6B 52.5 143.5 -2.743 .006

L4 51.5 222.5 -2.740 .006

F6 58 163 -2.720 .007

H10 55 226 -2.562 .010

E1A 58 229 -2.557 .011

K11 67 298 -2.541 .011

B4 69.5 300.5 -2.506 .012

N2 55 226 -2.422 .015

E9B 68.5 239.5 -2.275 .023

L7 66 237 -2.211 .027

P1 69 160 -2.188 .029

D2 84 337 -2.132 .033

L5 67.5 238.5 -2.104 .035

H5C 69.5 160.5 -2.069 .039

P6 62.5 140.5 -2.044 .041

G2 77.5 248.5 -2.032 .042

D12 79 184 -1.990 .047

K10 72.5 243.5 -1.979 .048

Table 4.4. Mann-Whitney U test comparing the ratings between the two groups and identifying the competencies for which inter-group consensus was not achieved.

149

Controversial co s

A 26 divergent ontroversia pete .05, 2-taile e

identified listed in table 4 (2000) warns th ough it is easy for a

researcher t ulate U and estimate a p-valu e interp the res n be

complicated for two reasons:

Fir e null hypothes ing tested nks used tocompute the calculat e but rat the continuous variable“lies ” or “beneath” the ranks (… econd r (…), rejecof uld come abo ause the ons differ in terms of thecen tendencies, the iabilities, a thei tional shapIn practice, however, th tne ar more sensitive to differences in central te ncy (.…) Bu here, an element of a ity remains bec the Mann-Whitney U cause Ho rej because two po differ in terms of their means, or in t f their medians terms of their modes. (p. 660)

Taking into consideration Huck’s suggestions, the researcher analyzed (1) the data’s

distribut hape for each , (2) the ende h of the 26

controvers ompetencies for each group (us th th and the m nd (3)

the dispersion of the scores using the Interquartile Range (IQR). The analysis supported

that Huck ncerns are gen he Mann y U t y sensitive

example s sensitivity is ncy “G distr f the ratin he

two groups for “G2” were somewhat similar: Q1 and Q3 were the same for both groups,

dispersi low (IQR=1 for both groups) b to a e in centra ncy

(median=mode=6 for educators and median =5 fo ners), the

ilar situation arose

with competency “P1”: although the practitioners reached high consensus (Q1=5;

Q2=Q3=Mode=6, IQR=1) and the educators reached close to perfect consensus at 5 with

mpetencie

total of or “c l” com ncies (p< d) wer

and .4. Huck at even th

o calc e, th retation of ults ca

st, th is be deals not with the ra ed valu her with that

behindH

.) The spopula

eason tion ir o co ut bec ti

tral ir var nd/or r distribu es. e Mann-Whind

y test is ft evee n

mbigu ause test could to be ect

ermsed o

pulations, or in

ional s group central t ncy of eac

ial c ing bo e median ode) a

’s co uine: t -Whitne est is ver and a good

of thi compete 2”. The ibutions o gs by t

on was ut due differenc l tende

=mode r practitio Mann-

Whitney U test yielded a p-value of .042 thereby rejecting Ho. A sim

150

extremes at 4 and 6 (Q1=Q2=Q3=Mode=5; IQR=0); P1 yielded a p-value of .029.

Similarly, competency “K10” showed high consensus within both groups but the

distribution of the ratings between the two groups was different enough to warrant

leaving that competency in the controversial group (Q1=4; Q2=Q3=5; Bimodal at 4 and

5; IQR=1 for the educators and Q1=Q2=Q3=Mode=4, IQR=0 for the practitioners).

Further more, about a fifth of the ratings in the practitioners group were identified as

“extremes”. Competencies “G2” and “P1” were taken out of the “controversial”

competencies grouping, which was now composed of 24 cases. These competencies were

further ,

controv ial

“supple al

controv

Truly divergent competencies.

This grouping encompasses competencies that were rated as “core” by one group

and “supplemental” by the other. Since ratings 4, 5, and 6 identified a competency as

“core” and a rating of less than 4 identified the competency as “supplemental”, the

competencies in this group were expected to have 1≤ Q1 ≥4, 1≤ Q3 ≥4 for one group and

4≤ Q1 ≥6, 4≤ Q3 ≥6 for the other (the middle 50% of the ratings was expected to be in

the [1,4] range for one expert group and [4,6] for the other). Ten such competencies were

identified and are depicted in figure 4.8. These competencies identify the biggest

divergence of opinion between the two expert groups. They should be further

analyzed and broken down into 4 categories: truly divergent competencies

ersial “core” competencies with high intra-group agreement, controvers

mental” competencies with high intra-group agreement and addition

ersial competencies.

151

Competency Description

N5 Integrate CRM and supply chain management

H8 Distinguish products/services that can be outsourced while still preserving positioning

N1 Establish processes to manage company wide relationships

L6

channels

K11 Continuously streamline the new offering development process

Figure 4.8.

H6 Collaborate with other market players in the positioning of offerings (e.g. via co-op advertising, co-branding, service contracts)

Optimize distribution by combining online (e.g. e-channels) and offline distribution

M6B Select communications media to best deliver messages to targeted audience

H10 Tie brand equity to marketing ROI metrics

E1A Analyze “value webs”

L5 Develop processes to facilitate communications between the channel members

Truly divergent competencies. The top portion of the figure depicts a clustered box-

plot of the ratings by each expert group for each competency (ratings 6, 5 and 4 identify a competency as “core”).

152

investigated, as they may be indicative of fundamental differences between practitioners

and educators in the field of business market management.

Controversial “core” competencies

Since ratings 4, 5, and 6 identified a competency as core, the competencies in this

group were expected to have Q1≥4 (the middle 50% of the ratings was expected to be in

the [4,6] range) for both expert groups. This group encompasses competencies that were

divergent in terms of inter-group agreement (Mann-Whitney U test with p<.05) but had

a high intra-group agreement (IQR≤1). Although the ratings indicated divergence, the

competencies in this category were identified as “core”. The two groups simply had

divergent opinions as to how “core” these competencies were. Nine such competencies

were identified and are depicted in figure 4.9.

Controversial “supplemental” competencies

Since ratings of less than 4 identified a competency as supplemental, the

competencies in this group were expected to have Q3≤4 (the middle 50% of the ratings

was expected to be in the [1,4] range) for both expert groups. This group encompasses

competencies that were divergent in terms of inter-group agreement (Mann-Whitney U

test with p<.05) but had a high intra-group agreement (IQR≤1). Although the ratings

indicated divergence, the competencies in this category were identified as

153

Figure 4.9. Controversial “core” competencies. The top portion of the figure depicts a clustered box-plot of the ratings by each expert group for each competency (ratings 6, 5 and 4 identify a competency as “core”).

Competency Description

A3 Understand the fundamentals of MR (know enough to evaluate expert advice)

F6 Link segmentation strategies to individual customer offerings

D2 Understand various pricing approaches

H5C Test positioning in the market to assess its value to the customers

Develop solutions which integrate the firm’s offerings with those of partners and

C3 Identify customers with high lifetime value

B4 Effectively use data from various sources to improve marketing decisions

P6 Efficiently delegate work

D12 Monitor the effectiveness of pricing strategies over time

K10 competitors (to maximize the offering’s value)

154

ese competencies were. Only one such competency was identified: “L7- Develop a

process for automating response feedback on offers”.

Additional controversial competencies

This category contains the residual four competencies that did not fit into the

preceding groupings. Oddly, all the remaining competencies share a common pattern: (1)

intra-group consensus was moderate for at least one of the expert groups in each of the

competencies; and (2) the median was at 4 in the practitioner group for all 4

competencies. The box-plot for the four competencies in this grouping is depicted in

figure 4.10.

On the whole, the controversial competencies were distributed amongst 12 of the

17 third iteration clusters. Four of the clusters contained about sixty percent of the

controversial competencies; furthermore, the two clusters “Channel management” and

“Positioning” accounted for a third of the controversial competencies (depicted in figure

4.11). The top controversial clusters should be further studied as they might indicate

deep-seated differences between the perceptions of the two expert groups.

“supplemental”, the two groups simply had divergent opinions as to how “supplemental”

th

155

Figure 4.10. Additional controversial competencies. The top portion of the figure depicts a clustered box-plot of the ratings by each expert group for each competency (ratings 6, 5 and 4 identify a competency as “core”).

Competency Description

D4 Calculate the "value-in-use" of offerings

e

ention

E9B ms of their impact

on cash flow

L4 Develop processes to assist channels in adding value to the firm’s product/service lin

N2 Integrate all points of customer interaction (ie. account acquisition, account retand shedding)

Establish processes to measure the ROI of marketing efforts in ter

156

L17%

H17%

D13%

N13%

E8%

%

A4%

B4%

C4%

K8%

P4

F4%

M4%

# controversial competencies

Cluster

4 L Channel Management

4 H Positioning

3 D Value and Pricing

3 N Customer Relationship Management (CRM)

2 E Market planning

2 K New Offering Development

1 P Marketing Leadership

1 A Marketing research

1 B Data management

1 C Harnessing value

1 F Market segmentation

1 M Marketing communications

Figure 4.11. Distribution of the 24 controversial competencies among the 17 competency clusters.

157

Perspective Four

The 24 controversial competencies were removed; and the remaining 129

ncies

ndix E.

rt grou

competencies analyzed. The fourth perspective sought to isolate the most critical

competencies as identified by both groups; they were labeled “Kernel” compete .

Kernel competencies

The data for all 129 competencies are summarized and tabulated in appe

The table provides dispersion and central tendency information for each expe p.

The following criteria were used to select the “kernel” competencies:

High importance rating by each group. The highest rated competenci by

both groups were selected. For each competency, each group’s ratin ad to

satisfy the following: Q1≥5, mode=6 and Q2≥5.5. In a few instance ause

of an even number of cases (competencies with Q2 at 5 and 6), the m dian

was assigned “5.5” by SPSS: these cases were deemed acceptable (f er

analysis using mean ranks showed that these competencies were clos to the

“kernel” cluster than the next level of competencies).

High consensus within each group. Dispersion of the ratings within each

group had to be low (IQR≤1). The previous requirement ensured th is

requirement was met.

at th

es

gs h

s, bec

e

urth

er

158

High consensus between the two groups. The first two requirements ensured

that the middle 50 percent of the ratings would fall at 5 or six with the mode

and the median at six (or ment above)

Fifteen competencies satisfied all the requirements, and they are depicted in figure

4.12. Th usters

of

It was difficult to rank-order the kernel competencies because dispersion was low

and central tendency (m maximum value. Taking into

consideration the fact that the two expert groups were relatively small and not equal in

size, th

anks may be

cumber om

ordinal:

consometiLikresparbnot likrela

The sum of petencies. The data are

describe i rs

and extrem

aside, the r htly different (depicted in figure 4.12). It should be

oted that in both ranking algorithms, competency C1A was the highest ranked. The

researcher concedes that the outliers and extreme ratings should not be discarded

at least 5.5 –see com

e kernel was composed of competencies from 11 of the 17 clusters. Three cl

(I, C and O) accounted for about half of the kernel competencies. The distribution

kernel competencies is depicted in figure 4.13.

edian and mode) was at its

e researcher calculated the mean ranks of each competency for each expert group

(using SPSS’s “Kendall W Ranks”) and then calculated the sum of the mean ranks. Huck

(2000) suggests that even though the conversion from raw scores to r

s e or might seem “odd”, ranks should be used when data are inherently

verting raw scores to ranks is related to the fact that raw scores mes appear to be more precise than they actually are (.…) With

ert-type attitude inventories, the total score derived from the subject’s onses are probably only ordinal in nature. Fore one thing, the

itrary assignment of consecutive integers to the response options does ely correspond to any subject’s view of how the response options

te to another (p. 654)

the mean ranks was used to rank order the kernel com

d n table 4.5. The latter does not take into consideration the fact that outlie

e cases may distort the rank order. If outliers and extreme cases were put

ank order would be slig

n

159

without further study. He recognizes the potential importance of further studying and

understanding why a few experts chose to rate a competency outside of general

consensus; but due to limited resources and time constraints, the outliers and extreme

ratings will not be further investigated in this document. In addition, it should be

mentioned that consensus was reached within both groups for competencies “C1A”, “B6”

and “K8” during the second iteration (these competencies were not re-rated in the third

iteration by either group of experts).

Practitioners Educators Competency Mean Rank Mean Rank Sum of mean ranks C1A 9.7 8.5 18.2 A4 8.8 8.5 17.3 P8 9.8 7.2 17 I2 8.6 8.2 16.8 Q1 8.1 8.6 16.7 H5B 7.6 8.9 16.5 O3 7.1 9.4 16.5 F3 7.6 8.6 16.2 I4A 8.2 7.6 15.8 J2 7.9 7.8 15.7 I4B 7.4 7.6 15 O2 8.1 6.8 14.9 B6 7.2 7.6 14.8 K8 7.3 7.1 14.4 C5 6.7 7.6 14.3 Table 4.5. Rank order of 15 kernel competencies based on sum of mean ranks from each expert group (low ranks correspond to low values of the variables).

160

Figure 4.12. “Kernel” competencies ordered by relative importance (as rated by the two expert groups).

Competency Description C1A Recognize what value is for the customer

Q1 Justify marketing decisions in financial terms

F3 Identify the fundamental drivers of customer segments

O3 Adapt to a changing business environment

P8 Behave ethically

A4 Turn marketing research results into action plans

I2 Effectively communicate the value proposition to the sales force

I4A (Collaborate with sales management to) align the marketing and the sales plans

O2 Anticipate change (i.e. its effects on business)

J2 Build an offerings portfolio around customer needs and behaviors rather than technologies

I4B (Collaborate with sales management to) integrate segmentation and targeting into the sales process

H5B Clearly communicate a unique value proposition for each target segment

B6 Collaborate with other functional leaders to ensure the inclusion of marketing data in the business decision-making process

C5 Use the firms’ core competencies to maximize value

K8 Develop value propositions for new offerings based on benefits rather than offering features

160

# Kernel competencies

Cluster

3 I Sales Integration

2 C Harnessing Value

2 O Creativity and Foresight

1 A Marketing Research

1 B Data Management

1 F Market Segmentation

1 H Positioning

1 J Managing Market Offerings

1 K New Offering Development

1 P Marketing Leadership

1 Q Business Acumen

Figure 4.13. Distribution of the 15 Kernel competencies among the 17 competency clusters.

A7%

B7%

F7%

H7%

J7%

K7%

P7%

Q7%

I19%

C12%

O13%

161

162

e expert

ese

competencies were rated highly by both groups but did not satisfy the s

requirements to be included among the kernel competencies. The practitioners and the

educators respectively rated five and six additional competencies as kern -level. These

competencies are depicted in figure 4.14. Two of the competencies tha e identified

as “core” by the educators did not reach a high level of consensus amongst the

practitioner group:

- E8. Articulate the marketing plan to all functional elements of the organization

- D3. Shift from traditional to value based models

The two competencies were identified as core (Q1≥4) by both expert gr ode

for the pair of competencies was six (the maximum) in both expert grou the

median was also six, with the exception of D3, where Mdn= 5 in the pra group.

Even though central tendency was high, these two competencies showe rather high

level of dispersion (IQR=2) within the expert practitioner group. The rat level of

agreement should be further investigated in order to better understand w y there was

such a large dispersion of the ratings among the practitioners in these two competencies

that were identified as core by the educators.

Additional kernel competencies

A few traits were identified as kernel-level competencies by only one of th

groups; and they were therefore not included in the previous analysis. All th

tringent

el

t wer

oups; the m

ps; and

ctitioners

d a

her low

h

163

Figure 4.14. Additional Kernel competencies (based on ratings by one of the expert groups).

Competency Practitioner “Kernel” competencies

O6

competitors

Creatively identify market opportunities

H3B Develop a strategy which will enable a firm to differentiate its offerings from its

C1B Recognize what value is for customer’s customer

J5 Understand the customer’s business processes in order to better integrate the firm’s offerings into the customer’s processes

P1 Build strong cross functional relationships

K1 Involve marketing in the development process of new offerings from the fuzzy front end (project conception) to the launch

Competency Educator “Kernel” competencies

F1 needs and behaviors

C4 create value for the customer

Identify innovative market segmentation criteria to aggregate customers with similar

Understand the firms’ business model: how various operations combine efforts to

G2 Allocate resources based on target segment potential

**E8 Articulate marketing plans to all functional elements of the organization

**D3 Shift from traditional to value-based pricing models

** high dispersion within practitioner group

164

Perspective 5

The controversial and kernel competencies were isolated so that the remaining

103 competencies could be analyzed. The fifth perspective sought to identify these

remaining core competencies. Just as in the previous analyses, consensus was measured

using the interquartile range and the importance of a competency was measured using

the location of the IQR. Since ratings 4, 5 and 6 identified a competency as “core” and

ratings 1, 2 and 3 identified it as “supplemental”, “core” competencies were defined as

having their entire IQR within the upper half of the Likert-type scale for both groups.

“Core” competencies were therefore identified as having Q1≥4 for both expert groups; 67

such competencies were identified.

Tier 2 competencies

Twelve competencies had Q1≥5 for both expert groups; they were labeled “tier

two” competencies. These competencies were further analyzed and are depicted in

figure 4.15. The ranking scheme was similar to the one used previously with the kernel:

“outliers” and “extremes” were isolated, a competency’s importance was determined by

the location of the IQR and two measures of central tendency (median and the mode)

were used to further refine the ranking. All twelve cases had a median and a mode of five

for both expert groups with the exception of competencies “E1C” and “H1” where the

mode was six for the practitioner group.

165

Competency Tier 2 competencies

P2 Align marketing team around a vision/strategy

E4 conditions

Compare the firms’ competitive advantage (functional and perceptual) to its

Develop innovative segmentation schemes that can be adapted to changing market

G1 Define selection criteria for identifying profitable segments

Design dynamic marketing strategies that can be easily adapted to changing market

J1 Recognize the role of service in differentiating offerings

E1C Identify sources for developing sustainable competitive advantage

H1 competitors’

F2 conditions

F8 Implement segmentation strategies through the sales organization

Select marketing objectives to be supported by Marketing Research

ing programs in order to customize marketing and

M3 Protect brand equity

G8 Develop an understanding for target segments that goes beyond quantitative analyzes (e.g. live in your market as opposed to flying over it)

A1

G3 Manage segment specific marketsales efforts

Figure 4.15. Tier 2 competencies ordered by relative importance (as rated by the two expert groups).

166

Fifty-five core competencies were left with Q1≥4. The first step of this part of the

nalysis was to determine if they could be grouped into naturally occurring clusters

taking the following into consideration: (1) the two expert groups are not of equal size

but the ranking algorithm must equally take into consideration the ratings from each of

the two groups, (2) the data are ordinal and (3) dispersion is somewhat low both

between and within the two groups. The sum of the mean ranks of each competency from

each of the expert groups was calculated using SPSS’s “Kendall W Ranks” (similarly to

the process used in perspective four with the kernel competencies). Since SPSS only uses

series without missing data to calculate the “Kendall W Ranks”, only the ratings from 13

practitioners and 10 educators would have been used by the software; therefore, a

within-group median imputation was conducted. In the latter, the missing values for

each competency were replaced by the median value of the series for each group.

Imputation by mean (Raaijmakers, 1999) seems to be more commonly used but due to

the nature of the data, the researcher opted to utilize imputation by median. The

substitution was conducted using SPSS’s “replace missing values” function. Since the

imputation process can slightly affect the measures of variability, the following analysis

was done with caution (even though the results of the imputation were used only for

ranking purposes). Unlike some of the previous rank ordering algorithms, this one does

not isolate “outliers” and “extreme” values. The competencies were ranked based on the

sum of mean ranks; the data are listed in table 4.6. The table itemizes (1) the mean rank

for each competency by each expert group and (2) the sum of the mean ranks (low ranks

correspond to low values of the variables). The last column of the table lists the linear

distance between the sum of mean ranks of consecutive competencies.

a

167

ED o PRACT Sum f

Compete an k Mean Rankncy Me Ran Mean Ra fference nks Di

F4 4. 37. 93 1 8 71. 0.1

E7 4. 37. 83 0 8 71. 1.2

C7 3. 37. 73 5 2 70. 1.5

I4G 2. 36. 23 3 9 69. 1.0

D7 6. 31. 23 3 9 68. 1.3

E5 2. 34. 93 8 1 66. 0.3

N6B 4. 31. 63 9 7 66. 0.0

H3A 5. 31. 63 2 3 66. 1.1

G4 9. 36. 42 4 1 65. 1.1

I4C 8. 35. 42 9 5 64. 0.0

J6 6. 28. 43 3 1 64. 0.5

I4F 0. 33. 93 6 2 63. 0.2

E3 9. 34. 62 6 0 63. 0.8

F5 8. 34. 82 2 6 62. 0.0

P4 5. 36. 82 9 9 62. 0.7

H4 2. 29. 13 9 2 62. 0.1

B1 8. 33. 02 2 8 62. 0.0

I3 7. 34. 02 8 2 62. 0.4

M1 4. 27. 63 4 1 61. 0.1

E1D 8. 32. 52 9 6 61. 0.1

G6 0. 31. 43 4 0 61. 0.1

D9 0. 30. 33 6 8 61. 2.8

Q5 0. 28. 63 3 3 58. 0.1

I4E 3. 25. 53 5 0 58. 0.1

Q3 3. 25. 43 0 5 58. 0.3

G7 0. 28. 23 1 0 58. 0.2

H5A 2. 25. 03 2 8 58. 0.2A2 4. 33. 8 0.62 6 2 57.

E1B 6. 30. 2 0.52 6 7 57.

R P ACT ED Sum of

Comp te Rank Mean Ranke ncy Mean Mean a rence R nks Diffe

K2A 1. 24. 1.0 3 8 9 56.7

K 2 9 8 55.7 0.67 9. 25.

K 3 4 8 55.2 0.35 2. 22.

P 2 4 4 54.8 0.33 7. 27.

M 2 8 8 54.6 1.92 7. 26.

D 2 4 3 52.7 0.88 6. 26.

O 2 1 8 51.9 0.05 7. 24.

O 2 4 5 51.9 0.34 3. 28.

J 2 4 2 51.6 0.37 6. 25.

N6A 6. 24.2 7 6 51.3 0.4

L2B 5. 25.2 3 6 50.9 0.4

D 3 4 0 50.4 0.25 0. 20.

F 2 1 2 50.2 1.47 4. 26.

J 2 9 9 48.8 0.88 3. 24.

D 2 1 0 48.0 0.36 5. 23.

C 2 3 5 47.7 0.39 0. 27.

L 2 1 3 47.4 0.13 3. 24.

Q 2 4 0 47.3 3.12 3. 24.

K2B 5. 18. 2 8 4 44.3 0.0

O 1 0 2 44.2 0.01 9. 25.

L2A 8. 25.1 4 8 44.2 0.0

K 1 4 8 44.2 0.36 9. 24.

E 2 8 1 43.9 0.26 8. 15.

D 0 2 5 2 43.7 1.41 4. 19.

E 1 4 0 42.4 1.22 9. 23.

K 2 6 5 41.19 0. 20.

Table 4.6. Rank e 55 re petenc based on sum mean ranks from each e rt oup w ranks correspond to low values of the vari ).

ord r of co com ies of xpe gr (loables

168

Based on th to

distinguish three separate clusters of competencies (based on importance):

Cluster B from Q5 to Q2

f K B

T lusters represented three additional tiers within the core competencies (tiers 3, 4

and and they will be analyzed separately. They are described in figures 4.16, 4.17

. e i l

Tier 3 core competencies

The 22 “third tier” core competencies are depicted in figure 4.16a and defined

in figure 4.16b. The median was at 5 within both groups, for all the competencies (w

1 exc ption: I3-educators). The level of consensus within the groups varied from very

0 t m d r e

The practitioners were not in agreement regarding competency “I4G- Collabor

with sales management to establish programs for customer retention”: the range of the

ratings

hand consistently gave the competency high marks: over 75% of the ratings were at 5 or

six, th

encies “I4C- Collaborate with sales management to periodically evaluate the

effe ting efforts” and “N6B- Establish processes to measure customer

e linear distance between consecutive “sum of mean ranks”, it is possible

Cluster A from F4 to D9

e c

5)

Cluster C rom 2 to K9

hes

ith

ate

and

compet

4 18 resp ct ve y.

e

high (IQR= ) o o e at (IQR=2).

went from a minimum of two to a maximum of six. The educators on the other

e two highest scores. The practitioners were also ambivalent regarding

ctiveness of marke

169

Figure 4.16a. Tier 3 competencies ordered by relative importance (as rated by the two expert groups).

170

Competency Sum of mean ranks

F4 Establish performance metrics for each segment 71.9

E7 Formulate marketing plan with options (analyses and recommendations) 71.8

C7 Link value (market/customer) to financial performance (shareholder value) 70.7

I4G (Collaborate with sales management to) establish programs for customer retention 69.2

D7 Estimate the long-term effects of short-term pricing decisions 68.2

E5 Monitor competitors marketing efforts (i.e. segmentation, targeting, offerings, pricing) in order to adjust the firm’s marketing strategy

66.9

N6B Establish processes to measure customer loyalty by segment 66.6

H3A Develop a strategy which will enable a firm to differentiate itself from its competitors 66.6

G4 Match segment-specific targeting strategy to overall corporate strategy 65.4

I4C (Collaborate with sales management to) periodically evaluate the effectiveness of marketing efforts 64.4

J6 Discontinue ineffective offerings efficiently 64.4

I4F (Collaborate with sales management to) develop strategies to enhance relationships with customers 63.9

E3 Assess potential factors that may help or hinder marketing objectives 63.6

F5 Develop cost/profit models to serve each market segment 62.8

P4 Demonstrate empathy for a wide cross-section of people (including customers and colleagues) 62.8

H4 Evaluate the impact of differentiation (e.g. on the firm’s operations) on profitability 62.1

B1 Set up a monitoring process that periodically provides feedback on vital marketing metrics 62.0

I3 Identify the respective roles of marketing and sales in the firm in order to better integrate the two functions 62.0

M1 Manage integrated marketing communications that are aligned with offering positioning 61.6

E1D identify sources of negative value (i.e. activities or customers that are draining value) 61.5

G6 Implement targeting strategies through internal stakeholders (i.e. sales, R&D, manufacturing) 61.4

D9 Manage pricing over generations of an offering (e.g. penetration pricing, upgrade pricing) 61.3

Figure 4.16b. Tier 3 core competencies- Descriptions.

171

loy y by segment”: the range of the ratings from the practitioners went from 3 to 6. All

the prac d

N6B should be further examined as they may identify endemic differences between the

two groups. Additionally, competencies F4 and I4F exhibited moderate to low consensus

on the practitioner side but l the ratings (100%) were within the “core” range.

The educators were ambivalent on the importance of certain competencies.

The ratings for “G6- Implement targeting strategies through internal stakeholders” were

spread over a range of [3-6] however, tha mpet was rated “5” over 50% of the

practitioners. Competencies G6 and I3 ex ate levels of consensus g

the educators (IQR>1), wh s consensu e practitioners w s gher (IQ ≤1).

The ratings between e groups we t f the

competencies we rly identified nd t e median sa up

saw t comp impor e other. P4 and B1 were rated higher by

the e ators wh t titioner

distribution of the ratin

almost identi rt

Th e gure 4.17a

figure 4.16b

median ratings of five

compet

at 4 and 4.5

alt

titioners rated these two competencies at 5 or six. Competencies I4G, I4C an

al

also

erea

e

competencie

9 and

t co

hibited

s with

en

e a

ted H4 and

e pricing over

d

e th

ency

moder

in th

or 4 of

h

tier had

edia

by

a

en

e

and are

e practitioner

amon

th

the

defi

hi

though

me

R

ese

gro

ned

s wer

th

lea

both exp

Tier 4 core competencies

h tier comp

except:

s J8, C

re diverg

as cor

tant than th

a

es

wh

ca

s

high

milar

ings f

ses:

wer

er. In additi

o

ev

e th

distribution, with

r th

re c

ereas

for

urt

e

, one

on,

offering” was

he

duc

etency as more

cal

o

. Most of the

enci

he prac

gs for “D9- M

s ra

nag

are

s in this

er

M1

in

n

generations of an

fi

a si

rat

groups.

tenci

I3,

e 25 f epicted

e m

in

e

172

competency K5, where the educators’ median was at 4.5.

Dispersion was rather high for two competencies: “N6A- Establish processes to measur

customer satisfaction by segment”; and “D8- Implement pricing strategies in dynamic

environments (uncertain demand and fluctuating capacity)”. In both cases, the range of

the ratings for the expert practitioners went from a minimum of 2 to a maximum

e

of 6.

While t

e

ffering launches”

Even though the competencies were identified as core, the distributions were skewed in

opposite directions for the two expert groups.

he practitioners were unable to clearly agree on the importance of N6A, more

than 50% of the educators (IQR=0) gave the competency a rating of 5. In addition, the

practitioners also showed ambivalence (IQR=2) for competency “K2A- Forecast market

demand” but all the ratings were in the “core” region, between 4 and 6. It should also b

mentioned that the two groups diverged mildly on the importance of three of the

competencies:

I4E- “(Collaborate with sales management to) leverage intelligence from sales”

Q3- “Ensure that all functions within the organization understand the strategic

role of marketing

K5- “Assess the risk of failure of new offerings by identifying critical issues that

could impact the success of new o

173

Figure 4.17a. Tier 4 competenci ordere relative importance es d by (as rated by the two expert groups).

174

Q2 U 47.3 nderstand global market dynamics

Figure 4.17b. Tier 4 core competencies- Descriptions.

Competency Sum of

mean ranks

Q5 Recognize how technology impacts B-to-B marketing processes (i.e. markets, sales, channels, CRM) 58.6

I4E (Collaborate with sales management to) leverage intelligence from sales 58.5

Q3 Ensure that all functions within the organization understand the strategic role of marketing 58.4

G7 Devise a process to track changes in targeted segments in order to realign targeting strategy 58.2

H5A Develop an integrated corporate and brand positioning strategy that is communicated to each market segment 58.0

A2 Formulate information requirements necessary to support marketing decisions 57.8

E1B Analyze value chains 57.2

K2A Forecast market demand 56.7

K7 Align new offerings with the brand positioning strategy 55.7

K5 Assess the risk of failure of new offerings by identifying critical issues that could impact the success of new offering launches 55.2

P3 Manage multiple marketing projects simultaneously 54.8

M2 Develop a theme for the brand that can be built over time, evolving with market conditions 54.6

D8 Implement pricing strategies in dynamic environments (uncertain demand and fluctuating capacity) 52.7

O5 Evaluate solutions that can streamline and optimize marketing processes 51.9

O4 Experiment with innovative ideas using calculated risk 51.9

J7 Distinguish different value criteria of international customers 51.6

N6A Establish processes to measure customer satisfaction by segment 51.3

L2B Evaluate alternative channels 50.9

D5 Evaluate tradeoff opportunities for market share and price premiums 50.4

F7 Adapt segmentation scheme over product lifecycle 50.2

J8 Rapidly turn customized solutions into offerings 48.8

D6 Develop strategies for pricing bundled offerings 48.0

C9 Assess the value of intangibles (e.g. Relationships, brands, market intelligence) 47.7

L3 Formulate strategies to address channel conflict 47.4

175

T ore competencies

The 8 “fifth tier” competencies are depicted in figure 4.18. The distributions in

this stratum of the core competencies similar. All the competencies follow a similar

pattern: the median ra w are at 5 for one expert group and 6 for the

other (with the exception of K6 where e higher median is at 4.5). Consensus was high

for most of he compe ncies with the e ception e.g. skill

sets) required t marketing ef where the IQR=2, Min=2 and

Max=6 for the expert actitioner group.

ier 5 c

are

o groups

th

x

plan

tings for the t

te

pr

t of “E6- Estimate staffing levels (

ely”to carry ou fectiv

176

Competency Sum of mean ranks

K2B Forecast competitive reaction to a new offering 44.3

O1 Integrate ideas into hybrid solutions 44.2

L2A Develop monitoring programs to track the effectiveness of channels 44.2

K6 Estimate the impact of new offerings on current operations (e.g. selling, distribution channels, and customer service)

44.2

E6 Estimate staffing levels (e.g. skill sets) required to carry out marketing plan effectively

43.9

D10 Develop a plan for global pricing 43.7

E2 Recognize opportunities to build profitable and sustainable cooperative networks 42.4

K9 Balance resources required for product development (time to market) and market development (time to market penetration).

41.1

Figure 4.18. Tier 5 competencies ordered by relative importance (as rated by the two expert groups).

177

Perspective six

Once all the core and controversial competencies were identified and isolated,

about a quarter of the original 153 components remained. They were the lowest rated by

the two expert groups and labeled “supplemental” competencies; figure 4.19 provides

basic descriptive information on these items. Since these competencies were identified

during the Delphi process, a minority of the panelists did see some utility in possessing

these competencies. They will therefore be investigated.

Borderline competencies

The first step was to identify the “borderline” competencies. The latter are

defined as the cases that fall between the upper limit for the supplemental competencies

and the lower limit for the core competencies (3<Q1<4). Since the data were being

treated at the ordinal level, the researcher opted not to set the threshold at the midpoint

between the two limits (3.5) but identified a gray zone between the two limits (where

Q1>3). Twelve cases were identified as borderline competencies. They were ordered by

importance and depicted in figure 4.20 (It should be mentioned that SPSS rounds the

data used to create box-plots to the nearest .5; therefore, most of the items depicted in

the figure as having Q1=4 have an actual first quartile of 3.75).

The residual supplemental competencies were the lowest rated. As one will notice,

there is an endemic pattern common to these competencies: in most cases, dispersion is

178

Figure 4.19. Distribution data for “supplemental” competencies (unranked). Letters in middle column identify and describe cases of large dispersion: P-high variability within practitioners, E-high variability within educators and B-high variability within both groups.

Median Mode Q1 Q3 IQR IQR Q3 Q1 Mode MedianAB2A 4 3 3 5 2 P 0.5 4.5 4 4 4 B2AB 2BB3A 4 4 3.75 5 1.25 1.5 5 3.5 4 4 B3AB 3BB5 4 4 3 5 2 P 1 5 4 5 4 B5C 2C6 4 4 3.75 5 1.25 1 5 4 5 5 C6C 3.5 3 3 3 C8D1 4 3 3 5 2 P 1 4 3 3 3 D1D11 4 4 3 4 1 1.5 5 3.5 4 4 D11E9A 5 5 3.75 5 1.25 1.5 6 4.5 5 5 E9AE9C 4 3 3 5 2 P 1.5 5 3.5 5 4 E9CG5 4.5 4 5 3 5 5 G5H2 5 5 3 6 3

Expert Practitioners Expert Educators/ResearchersC

5 3.5 3 3 5 2 P 1.5 5 3.5 4 4 A5

2B 4 3 3 5 2 B 1.75 5 3.25 4 4 B

3B 5 5 4 5 1 1 4 3 4 4 B

2 5 5 3.75 6 2.25 1 6 5 5 5 C

8 4 5 3 5 2 P 0.5

entral tendency Dispersion Dispersion Central tendency

4 5 1 E 2*P* 1.5 5.75 4.25 5 5 H2

H7 4 4 3 4 1 1 4 3 3 4 H7H9 5 5 3 5 2 P 1.5 5.5 4 5 5 H9I1 4 4 I1I4D 3 3 3 4 1 1.5 5 3.5 5 4 I4DIJ3 4 4 3.75 5.25 1.5 1.5 5 3.5 5 5 J3J 4 J4K3 4.5 5 4 5 1 E 2 5 3 5 5 K3KL1 4.5 5 3.75 5 1.25 1 6 5 5 5 L1M M4M5 5 5 4.75 5 0.25 E 2 5 3 5 4 M5M 6AM6C 4 4 3 5 2 P 1 4 3 4 4 M6CM 7N3 4 4 3.75 5.25 1.5 1 6 5 5 5 N3NN4B 5 5 3 5 2 B 2 6 4 6 5 N4BP 4 4 4 P5P7 4 3 3 5 2 P 1 5 4 4 4 P7

4 3.75 5 1.25 1.5 4.5 3 4

5 4 5 3.75 5 1.25 0.5 4.5 4 4 4 I5

4 4.5 5 3 5 2 P 1 5 4 4

4 5 5 4 5 1 E 2 5 3 3 4 K4

4 4 4 3.5 5 1.5 1.5 5 3.5 4 4

6A 4.5 5 3.75 5 1.25 1 5 4 4 4 M

7 4 4 3.75 5 1.25 1.75 5 3.25 5 5 M

4A 4.5 3 3 5.25 2.25 P 1 5 4 5 5 N4A

5 5 5 3.5 5 1.5 1.75 5.75

Q4 4 4 3 4 1 E 2.5 4.5 2 2 3 Q4

179

Figure 4.20. Borderline competencies (as rated by the two expert groups)

M7 Monitor the effectiveness of marketing communications efforts in order to demonstrate a ROI

Borderline competencies

C2 Estimate the sustainability of sources of value

E9A Establish processes to measure the ROI of marketing efforts

L1 Manage channel relationships

N3 Embed STP (Segmentation-Targeting-Positioning) into all aspects of CRM

P5 Exhibit exceptional ability to settle conflicts

C6 Effectively use alliances to create value

J3 Develop bundling (de-bundling and re-bundling) strategies

M6A Recommend programs for reinforcing brand values with all stakeholders (internal/external)

B3A Recognize instances when data mining can be advantageously used

M4 Solicit sales force input into marketing communications programs

I5 Monitor the effectiveness of the sales force (e.g. by brand, by market segment)

180

igh within at least one of the groups. Furthermore, unlike the other competencies

ompetency/ “supplemental” competency proverbial threshold. Understanding why the

members of one of the two expert groups would not agree on the importance of these

competencies can provide crucial insights into the business-to-business marketing

profession. Three distinct clusters of large intra-group dispersion cases can be identified:

(1) cases with lower levels of agreement within both groups, (2) cases with lower levels of

agreement within the practitioners and (3) cases with lower levels of agreement within

the educators

Cases with low levels of agreement within both groups.

Two cases were identified where both expert groups could not clearly agree on

the importance of a competency (identified with a “B” in the center column in figure

4.19):

- B2B “Understand the characteristics (i.e. limitations, strengths) of qualitative

research methods”

- N4B “Establish processes to share the results of corrective actions with customers”

Two possible explanations could describe the lack of consensus in both groups. First, it is

possible that the competency statements were unclear or unspecific; therefore they were

interpreted differently by different people. Second, it is possible that the experts from

both groups simply disagreed on the importance of the competencies.

Furthermore, the distributions of the ratings for the two cases were very

differ ures of

h

studied previously, the ambivalence of the experts within the group crosses the “core”

c

ent. Competency B2B exhibited a rather high level dispersion and the meas

181

central tendency were at the threshold between “core” and “supplemental” (median

mode=3 for the practitioners and median=mode=4 for the educators). Competency N4

also showed rather high dispersion but the measures of central tendency were clearly

inside the core rating range (median=mode=5 for the practitioners and median=5,

mode=6 for the educators). The N4B should be further investigated as it may be a co

competency.

=4,

B

re

Cases with low levels of agreement within the practitioners.

Twelve such cases were identified and are depicted in figure 4.21. All the

co ith Q1=3, Q2=4

or 4.5 and Q3=5 for the practitioners. Seven out of these 11 competencies did reach the

thresho 4,

level of dispersion out of all 153 competencies (IQR=3): the expert practitioners

entify

cy (Q1= 4.25, Q3=5.75) and variability within that group was

mpetencies in this category (with the exception of H2) had an IQR=2 w

ld (Q≥4) to be identified as core competencies by the educators (B2A, B5, H9, J

N4A, P7 and H2). “H2-Assess current brand positions in targeted segments” had the

highest

could not agree on its level of importance. On the other hand, the educators did id

it as a core competen

moderate (IQR=1.5). This dichotomy should be further examined.

182

Supplemental competencies (w/ high dispersion within practitioners)

H2 Assess current brand positions in targeted segments

H9 Manage positioning in global markets

N4A Establish processes to manage (capture, analyze and handle) customer feedback (ie. satisfaction, complaints, suggestions)

J4 Establish a continuous offering improvement process

P7 Effectively manage agency relationships (e.g. marketing research, Marketing communications)

E9C (Establish processes to measure the ROI of marketing efforts) in terms of their impact on reducing risk for companies

B5 Manage a competitive intelligence program

A5 Develop a process to measure the Return On Investment of MR

B2A Understand the characteristics (i.e. limitations, strengths) of quantitative research methods

M6C Manage design issues (ie. trademark, logo…) associated with branding

D1 Calculate the total costs of offerings (e.g. manufacturing costs, service costs)

C8 Assess the potential value of proprietary technologies

Figure 4.21. Supplemental competencies with high dispersion within the practitioners

183

Cases with low levels of agreement within the educators.

Only five such competencies were identified and they are depicted in figure

4.22. The distributions were very similar for all the competencies (with the exception of

“Q4”): IQR=2, Q1=3, Q2=5, the medians were at 4 or 5 for the educators and IQR=1,

Q1=4, Q2=5, the medians were at 4.5 or 5 for the practitioners. Competency “Q4-

Address not only customer but also investor communications” exhibited the lowest

ratings seen thus far in the analysis. Both Delphic groups agreed that it was one of the

least important competencies identified.

Lowest rated competencies.

Five competencies were left and these were the lowest rated competencies by both

groups. The following is a listing of the least important competencies identified through

the Delphi process (unranked): B3B-“Recognize instances when qualitative approaches

can provide more insight than quantitative methods (e.g. probing customers’ unmet

needs)”; D11- “Align pricing strategies with government regulations”; H7-

“Understand the principles associated with brand extensions”; I1-“Distinguish the role

of marketing in different sales scenarios (e.g. Solutions selling, strategic selling,

relationship selling)”; and I4D-“Collaborate with sales management to assist in the

design of compensation schemes for sales people to motivate them to achieve both the

firms’ sales and marketing objectives”

184

Supplemental competencies (w/ high dispersion within educators)

G5 Market the targeted segments to internal stakeholders (i.e. sales, communication, R & D,

Involve all stakeholders (within the firm, the target segments and the channel) in the

M5 Design segment-specific communications taking into account cultural and regional differences

K4 Create a process to review new offerings with decision gates at critical steps

strategic planning…)

K3 development of new offerings

Q4 Address not only customer but also investor communications

Figure 4.22. Supplemental competencies with high dispersion within the educators

185

Perspective 7

Perspective two examined the data in the early phases of the quantitative

analysis. A preliminary assessment of the consensus building approach was undertaken

using the intraclass correlation (ICC(3,k) two-way mixed model average measure

reliability). Since the model was designed with the premise that all the observations

would be independent, the analysis of the third iteration data was done with caution: the

raters had been provided with measures of central tendency and dispersion for their

group.

Evolution of consensus building

Given that one of the main goals of the Delphi technique is to build consensus,

the consensus building process was measured one last time from another perspective,

one that is less constrictive and appropriate to even nominal level data. The frequencies

of the IQR values for all the competencies and a series of clustered bar graphs were used

to measure convergence within the two groups during the last two iterations. Given that

a large portion of the analysis relied on the IQRs, this approach also provided a basic but

holistic view of the consensus data that were used in this analysis. These snapshots of the

consensus

the same axial and spatial scale).

The clustered bar graphs show the shift toward consensus from the second

iteration to the third. Even though the overall range of the dispersion levels remained the

same from the second iteration to the last (Min IQR=0 and Max IQR= 3), the shape of

building process are provided in figure 4.23 (the graphs in the figure share

186

the distribution did change. By the e teration, the majority of the

competencies had dispersion levels located at 0.5> IQR ≤ 2 : the practitioners and the

educato tencies

e

nd of the second i

rs had dispersion levels within that range for 77% and 82% of their compe

respectively. By the end of the last iteration, the number of cases in that range reached

90% for the practitioners and 85% for the educators. Furthermore, at the end of th

second iteration the majority of the competencies had a consensus level of IQR=2 (in

both groups) but by the end of the third round, about half of the competencies (in both

groups) had reached a consensus level of IQR=1.

187

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

% o

f to

tal d

istr

ibu

tio

n

IQR

Consensus levels ( IQR) at the end of the second iteration

Pract 1% 1% 16% 24% 37% 14% 7% 1% 0% 0% 0%

Ed 0% 2% 22% 27% 33% 12% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

IQR>2 : Low consensus

IRQ≤1 : High consensus1<IRQ≤2 : Moderate consensus

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

% o

f to

tal d

istr

ibu

tio

n

IQR

Consensus levels ( IQR) at the end of the third iteration

Pract 3% 6% 48% 24% 18% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Ed 7% 8% 61% 12% 12% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

IRQ≤1 : High consensus1<IRQ≤2 : Moderate consensusIQR>2 : Low consensus

Figure 4.23. Consensus levels for all 153 competencies and both expert panels at the end of iterations 2 and 3.

188

Summary of the perspectives

This chapter provided an overview of the analysis of the second and third

iteration quantitative data. The data were broken down into a series of clusters that

emerged from the ratings. A synopsis of these strata is provided in figure 4.24. Overall,

102 competencies were identified as core. In most of the clusters, it is possible to identify

patterns and themes (these are listed in the figure under the column labeled “primary

themes”).

The pre-Delphi processes and the Delphi allowed for the construction of the

preliminary functional competency model. The analysis facilitated the de-construction of

that model into clusters that emerged from the data. Over the next chapter, the model

will be reconstructed based on the findings from the analysis. Chapter five will provide a

summary of the data from a more holistic point of view.

189

Level #

cases stratum

# cases

Primary theme(s)

Kernel 26 Kernel 15

Additional kernel (Pract) 6

Additional kernel (Ed)

- Und ta g the cu meRe iz in d im e

- Boun an (particu w saSa int ti

- Anti ati and adapting t an Offe g lo nt

5

ers ndin- cogn ing, commun

dary sp ning- les egra on

cip ng - rin deve pme

sto r icat g an max izing valu

larly ith les)

o ch ge

Tier two 12 - Seg nt n ( igning a om iti ng strategy) me atio Des daptable c pet ve marketi

Tier three 22 - Marke s ng onitoring e tio i trategy) t ensi (m the volu n of market ng s

Tier four 25 - Optimizing mark ng proce s eti sse

Tier five 8 Ma in titive a vantag - inta ing a compe d e

Co

re (1

02

)

Controversial/core * 9 - Marke R r icin t esea ch and Pr g

Borderline 12 (di at spar e)

Lower consensus 19 Practitioners Po ni- Quan fic n /moneta al ) - Rela ns ement

12 - sitio ng ti atio (ROI

tio hip managry v ue …

Educators - Stake ol (in al/firm, terna eg nts an investor partic a in ting pr ss

5 h der ternip tion marke

ex l/s me , ch nel,oce es

s)

Both (di at2 spar e)

Lowest rated 5 (di atspar e)

Su

pp

lem

en

tal (3

7)

Controversial/supp * 1

Truly divergent 10 dl pa ) (mil y dis rate

Additional controversial

4 (di atspar e)

Co

mp

ete

ncy

ty

pe (

# c

ase

s)

Mis

c. (

14

)

Note: The controversial competencies were analyzed separately th e di uted in t ta a on i (see *) but ey w re re strib his ble b sed the r type

Figure 4.24. Summary of the de-construction process and break down o e peten identified modified Delphic process

f th 153 com cies through the

Chapter 5

Summary, recommendations and conclusions

Just as the largest library, badly arranged, is not so useful as a very moderate one that is well arranged, so the greatest amount of knowledge, if not elaborated by our own thoughts, is worth much less than a far smaller volume that has been abundantly and repeatedly thought over. Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

191

Introduction

Prior to the Delphi, a prelusive competency model was developed through an

environmental scanning process conducted simultaneously with a literature review

supplemented by a series of review panels composed of expert business market

management practitioners and researchers. At the end of the first iteration of the

modified Delphi, a preliminary functional competency model was developed and refined

with the assistance of the Delphic panel. In an effort to further refine the model,

quantitative data were collected separately from the two groups of expert participants

during the second and third iterations of the modified Delphi process.

One hundred and fifty three competencies were rated using a Likert-type scale

and the data were analyzed in chapter four. Overall, 102 competencies of the original 153

were identified as “core” and stratified into 5 (+1 “controversial core”) levels of

importance; 37 of the competencies were rated “supplemental” and grouped into 4

levels; and 14 controversial traits were identified. First, this chapter will summarize the

results of the study and make recommendations for future research. Second, a post-

Delphi overview will be provided covering both the participants’ perspective and

researcher’s insights.

In an attempt to provide a more holistic view of the data, a model based on the

six strata of the 102 “core” competencies will be synthesized. The latter will depict the

data in a less compartmentalized and myopic manner than seen thus far and will offer a

holistic view of the competencies that will define exceptional business-to-business

market managers over the next five years. The emergent model will offer a perspective of

the data based on the competencies’ perceived importance by the two groups of experts.

192

In an effort to offer a more complete assessment of the findings, two additional

expositions will be offered. The emergent model data will be viewed from a functional

perspective and then from a systems point of view. The latter will be exploratory and will

attempt to map out the relationships and interdependence between the core

competencies.

Once the three perspectives of the competency model have been drafted,

suggestions for future research in business market management will be reviewed. The

chapter will conclude with a brief description of the panelists’ comments and

experiences, followed with a discussion by the researcher.

Holistic perspective A: The Emergent Model (EM)

The emergent model was structured around the analysis of the data collected

during the last two Delphic iterations; and is founded solely on the competencies that

were identified in the six strata of the “core” competencies. This model identifies the

various layers of the core based on the perceived importance of the competencies by the

two expert groups. The model is depicted in figure 5.1. Aside from the “controversial

core” competencies, each stratum exhibited commonalities between its components.

193

Kernel

Tier 2

Tier 3

Tier 4

Tier 5

Controversial/Core

Understanding the customer

Recognizing and communicating value

Integrating marketing and sales

Boundary spanning

Anticipating/adapting to change

Developing offerings

-Adaptive segmentation- Designing adaptable competitive

market strategy

-Market sensing- Monitoring the evolution of

marketing strategy

-Optimizing marketing processes- Managing marketing operations

Maintaining a competitive advantage

(Miscellaneous set) Marketing research and pricing

Figure 5.1 (with interactive links). Holistic perspective A: Emergent model. Strata based on perceived importance of core competencies by expert practitioners and educators

194

The kernel. Composed of six main themes, the kernel represents the most important

competencies that will define exceptional business marketers over the next five years.

These competencies were analyzed in more detail in the previous chapter. Two of the

prevalent notions are present within that group involve: (1) understanding the needs of

the customer and (2) having a good grasp of the concept of “value”. The latter is crucial

in the realization of the former. The model’s highest rated competency encompasses

both concepts: “C1A- Recognize what value is for the customer”. Over the next five

years, exceptional business marketers will understand the concept of value on many

levels, they will be able to recognize it and communicate it to various audiences. These

individuals will be keen at identifying their customers’ needs and catering to them

through their offerings. They will not build their offerings portfolio around technologies

or features but around the clients’ needs. The expert educators went even further: (1)

they see these marketers as professionals who can identify value not only for their

customers but also for their customers’ customers, (2) these marketers understand their

customers so well that they are able to better integrate their firm’s offerings into the

clients’ processes. They identify innovative market segmentation criteria to aggregate

customers with similar needs and behavior; and clearly communicate a unique value

proposition for each target segment.

These marketers anticipate change, its impact on business; and are able to adapt

to a business environment that is constantly changing. They turn marketing research

results into action plans and are able to communicate and collaborate with various

functions within the firm, especially sales. They work closely with sales to align the

marketing and the sales plans; to effectively communicate the value proposition to the

sales force; and to integrate segmentation and targeting into the sales process. They

195

articulate the marketing plans to all the functional elements of the organization, ensure

that marketing data is included in the business decision process and are able to justify

marketing decisions in financial terms. They understand their firm’s business model and

the role of other functional areas well enough that they are able to leverage the firm’s

core competencies to create and maximize value for the customers. The practitioners add

that these market managers involve marketing in the development process of new

offerings from the project’s inception (“fuzzy front end”) to the launch.

These marketers behave ethically [it should be noted that during the second

iteration, dispersion was at the border of moderate to high with ratings fluctuating

between 5 and 6 within the educators group. The 2002 Enron scandal occurred before

the third iteration and it may have encouraged the educators to sway toward the

maximum rating (6). It should also be mentioned that ethical behavior was rated highly

by the practitioners from the beginning].

Tier 2. The second level of competencies (based on importance) encompasses various

aspects in the design of competitive strategy, especially segmentation. The exceptional

market managers align their marketing team around a vision to design dynamic

marketing strategies that can be adapted to changing market conditions. They

continuously seek means of developing a sustainable competitive advantage and

periodically compare their firm’s competitive advantage (functional and perceptual) to

their competitors’. They develop innovative segmentation schemes that can be adapted

to the changes in dynamic markets and implement these segmentation strategies

through the sales organization. They are able to identify profitable segments and manage

segment specific marketing programs where marketing and sales efforts are customized.

196

They recognize the role of service in differentiating offerings, which they tailor to the

needs of the targeted segments. They select the marketing objectives to be supported by

marketing research and develop an understanding for target segments that goes beyond

quantitative analyses. They are the champions of “brand equity”.

Tiers 3 through 5. The last three levels of the model focus more on the execution of

marketing strategy and the marketing plan. Tier three mostly highlights competencies

that involve the monitoring of various marketing metrics to detect changes in various

aspects of the markets (in targeted segments, in competitors marketing efforts -e.g.

segmentation, targeting, offerings, pricing). A complete listing of the competencies in the

third layer of the model is provided in chapter 4. The fourth tier brings together

competencies that focus on integrating, adapting and optimizing marketing processes.

The competencies in this stratum are more focused at managing marketing operations;

and rely on the proper execution of competencies that were listed in tier 4. Tier five is the

smallest (size wise) of the five levels; the competencies in this group are geared more at

maintaining a competitive advantage.

Controversial “core” competencies. The competencies in this stratum were labeled as

controversial because the two expert groups diverged in their perceived importance of

the competencies (highlighted in Figure 5.4). The scores from the two groups attested

that these competencies were “core”, albeit the researchers and educators could not

agree on their degree of importance. Definite patterns could not be identified. The

competencies in this cluster described various concepts: marketing research (MR) and

MR-related competencies occurred the most; followed by pricing-related competencies.

197

Holistic perspective B: The Emergent Functional Model (EFM)

A prelusive functional competency model was developed in the pre-Delphic

phases of the study and it was refined during the first iteration of the modified Delphi.

That version of the functional model was composed of 153 competencies grouped into 17

clusters. After the analysis of the data, the functional model was re-drafted based solely

on the set of core competencies identified through the analysis in chapter 4 (figure 5.2).

The new model features a total of 102 competencies grouped in 12+1 clusters. The

“Marketing Research” and “Data Management” clusters were fused to create a new

grouping. After the analysis, about a third of the component competencies within the two

clusters were identified as controversial or lowest rated, and 9 competencies were

identified as core. The two clusters were merged into one new cluster labeled “Data

Management” (as per the recommendations of some of the panelists in the second and

third iterations). Furthermore, these competencies were originally split into two clusters

to facilitate the processing of the data as suggested by Dembo (1991, p.270). According to

Dembo the short-term information processing capacity of an adult is limited. An average

adult can process 7±2 pieces of information at a time but “chunking” or grouping the

pieces increases the amount of information that can be handled. Since the panelists had

to handle a multitude of competencies (over 150 during the second iteration), it was

deemed necessary to break up large clusters. Using similar reasoning, the “Personal

competencies” (clusters O, P and Q) were originally broken down into three clusters.

After the analysis, clusters O, P and Q were merged to form two groupings: “Marketing

Leadership” and “Business Acumen”.

198

Designing Market Strategy

Market Segmentation

Market Planning

Targeting

Sales Integration

Positioning/Market communications

Channel Conflict Management

Market Offerings Management

New Offering Development

CREATING & HARVESTING VALUE

Value and Pricing

Positioning/ Market communications

Sales Integration

Targeting

Market Planning

Market Segmentation

DESIGNING MARKET STRATEGY

Business acumen

Marketing leadership

PERSONAL COMPETENCIES

Harnessing Value Data Management/ Market Research

UNDERSTANDING VALUE

Figure 5.2. Emergent functional model (EFM). Based on core competencies that will define exceptional B-to-B Market Managers (as identified by leading expert practitioners and researchers).

199

The new emergent functional model was based only on competencies that had

been identified as “core” by both expert groups. Two of the clusters that were composed

mostly of competencies that were rated “supplemental” or “controversial” were

decimated:

Cluster M- “Marketing Communications” which originally contained nine

competencies was reduced to a complement of three. Five of the six

competencies were taken out of the model because of their rather low

importance ratings and one was identified as a “truly divergent” competency.

Furthermore, since the remaining 3 competencies were all directly related to

the concept “positioning”, they were collapsed into H- “Positioning”.

Cluster N- “Customer Relationship Management” lost six (75%) of its original

eight competencies for the same reasons. Half of these competencies were

eliminated from the model because of low ratings and the other three were

taken out because of the divergent ratings between the two expert groups. The

two competencies that were left were part of a two-faceted competency

statement relating to the measurement of (a) customer satisfaction by segment

and (b) customer loyalty by segment. The two-part competency statement was

moved to cluster B- “Data management”.

A third cluster was severely impacted: L-“Channel management” lost six of its eight

competencies. Five of the competencies taken out of the model were identified as

controversial and one was taken out because of low ratings. This cluster raises many

issues and should be further investigated to better understand the dichotomy between

the perceptions of the practitioners and the educators regarding the importance of these

competencies. Furthermore, this cluster received some of the lowest rankings from both

200

groups: its two top competencies were among the lowest rated “tier four” competencies;

the third was part of the “fifth tier”. In addition, these three remaining competencies

could not be merged with any of the existing clusters: they formed a category of their

own and could not be integrated into any other grouping.

It should be noted that the only technical cluster that remained intact was F-

“Market segmentation”. All the competencies within that cluster were part of the core: 6

of the 8 competencies (75%) were part of the Kernel and the second tier; 1 competency

was part of the 3rd tier; and the last, part of the 4th tier. The strongest and most integral

functional cluster was “segmentation”.

Holistic perspective C: The Emergent Systems Model (ESM)

This last perspective of the competency model is exploratory and seeks to depict

the interdependencies and relationships that exist between the core competencies.

Various competency modeling approaches were reviewed in chapter two, followed by the

description of a wide range of competency modeling studies that were conducted in

various fields. The literature suggests that thus far, competency models have been very

simple linear descriptions: in most of the cases reviewed, researchers sought to identify

the skills and other traits that identify exemplary performers, without investigating the

latent relationships that may exist between the competencies. This study sought to offer

an optimized approach to competency model building; therefore an alternative method

of viewing the emergent model will be offered. First, the concept of a “model” will be

201

briefly examined followed by a short overview of the use of systems theory in qualitative

research.

Models and systems thinking.

Most of the peer-reviewed articles examined on this topic provided a myopic

interpretation of the word “model” that was geared toward a specific discipline or linked

to a specific philosophy. Encyclopædia Britannica Online (2000) was consulted and it

presented a well-rounded overview of the concept from a variety of viewpoints and

disciplines. The following is a synopsis of eight of the encyclopedia’s articles on the topic.

In sciences such as physics, biology, medicine and others, models are simple

representations of tangible items or processes. The simplest models are usually physical

representations such as mockups of object (e.g. planes and ships). One level up from

physical models, we find graphs but they only allow for a limited number of variables

and cannot support very complex variable interactions. At the next level, models are

represented in a more abstract form: in symbolic models, variables are depicted as

symbols. Unlike their physical counterparts, symbolic models can support an unlimited

number of variables with very complex interactions. These models are usually very useful

in fields such as applied mathematics where they can be used to mimic the complex

interactions between multiple variables. Abstract models are not necessarily

mathematical formulas; they can be paradigms or descriptions of patterns (such is the

case with competency models). Since models are basic representation of a more complex

system, they only address aspects of the system that pertain to the issue being studied.

Limitations also stem from the fact that we live in a very complex and dynamic world

where most of the time, it is impossible to account for all the variables affecting the

202

object we are trying to model. Physicists and chemists are sometimes able to control

their environment and therefore, are able to exert more control over their model. Since it

is usually not worthwhile to design more detailed models than necessary, the level of

complexity of a model is therefore directly related to its use.

A few researchers and theoreticians have argued for the use of systems theory in

the social sciences as a means of providing a holistic view of complex problems. Patton

(1990) explains:

Parallel to the philosophical and methodological paradigms debate between logical positivists (quantitative-experimental research) and phenomenologists (qualitative-naturalistic inquiry), there has been another and corresponding paradigms debate about mechanistic, linear constructions of the world versus organic, systems constructions. This debate has been most intense among organizational theorists (Burns and Stalker, 1972; Azumi and Hage, 1972; Lincoln, 1985; Gharajedaghi, 1985; Morgan, 1986, 1989). It includes concern about definitions of closed systems versus open systems and the implications of such boundary definitions for research, theory and practice in understanding programs, organizations, entire societies, and even the whole world (Wallerstein, 1980). (p. 78).

Patton goes on to stress three points: (1) a systems perspective can be an important

approach to understanding complex problems, (2) qualitative inquiry is an important

aspect of certain types of systems research and (3) a systems approach can be an efficient

method for “making sense out of qualitative data”.

The last holistic perspective of the business-to-business market management

competency model will be built based on the qualitative data that was collected over a

period of about thirty months. That data will be used in parallel with the quantitative

findings from the last two iterations of the Delphi. The model will be built based on

concepts borrowed from systems theory; and first and second order cybernetics. Geyer

(1995) defines first order cybernetics and negative feedback:

…first order cybernetics- with its engineering approach and corresponding stress on constructing control systems, and with its

203

predilection for negative rather than positive feedback phenomena—was interested primarily in homeostasis or equilibrium-maintenance, or at least in restoring a system’s equilibrium whenever it was disturbed by external influences impinging on that system. (paragraph 10)

Ghosal (1999) explains the concept of second order cybernetics and its focus on negative

feedback:

The second order cybernetics rests on the premise that the system definition includes the observer/researcher as a key element. The second order cybernetics considers problems of growth and morphogenesis in biological, economic and social systems (p. 377).

For the purpose of this study, negative feedback is described as a process that keeps a

system at equilibrium, allowing it to fluctuate within certain boundaries: when changes

are detected, a negative feedback loop brings the system back to its preset parameters (a

good example of the latter is a home thermostat: when the temperature is under the

preset limit, it turns on the furnace and when it is above the limit, it turns on the cooling

system). Conversely, positive feedback catalyzes and facilitates change; in fact, it

accelerates the deviation from equilibrium. Both forms of feedback are present in

biological and organizational systems; Greyer writes:

As Van der Zouwen [23] put it succinctly: without negative feedback loops the organism cannot maintain itself in its environment, and without positive feedback loops it has no chance of survival as a species in view of the environmental changes to which it has to adapt by setting new goals. (paragraph 13)

The systems perspective of the model will examine (1) the main components of the

model, (2) the interrelations of these components and (3) the presence of negative or

positive feedback loops.

Validity. One of the tenets of second order cybernetics is that the observer is a key

element in the analysis of the system: observations are dependent on and directly linked

to the researcher. Even though the results of the analysis of the quantitative data will be

204

used in the first step of the model building process, much of the system’s design involved

the use of qualitative data that was collected prior to and during the Delphi process.

Validity becomes an issue and it is directly related to the competence of the

observer/researcher. In an attempt to (hopefully) alleviate validity concerns, a brief

description of the researcher’s skills, in areas that pertain to this aspect of the study, are

provided.

The researcher spent over 30 months working on this project. During that time,

he worked closely with various practitioners, educators and researchers in business

management to collect data, identify and understand the competencies. He has

participated in various conferences and meetings on the professional development of

business marketers, conducted the initial literature review for this study, and

synthesized the various surveys that were used. He is familiar with all the 153

competencies listed in the original model; and has managed the entire project since its

genesis. Over the past three years, he has worked for the Professional Personnel

Development Center at Penn State University where he provided various development

services ranging from occupational analysis and competency identification to needs

assessments. He has taught courses and conducted workshops at the State University of

New York at Stony Brook and at Penn State University on telecommunications

systems/cybernetics, supercomputing systems/cluster computing, and

telecommunication and information systems. He has completed undergraduate and

graduate programs in areas that involved various aspects of systems theory and

optimization: applied mathematics and statistics, business management (focus on

technology and operations) and technological systems management.

205

The algorithm. A very simple yet time-consuming algorithm was used to develop the

systems model. The process was somewhat similar to the one used in the content

analysis of the first iteration data (described in chapter 3). The main difference was that

the focus was the identification of clues that might indicate (1) any kind of relationship

between and within the competencies (2) the presence of negative feedback (realignment

or error detection and correction) and (3) the existence positive feedback (adaptation or

metamorphosis). The process started with the kernel; followed by the various layers of

the core competencies. In most cases, the competencies had to be retraced to their

genesis for clarification. The process was iterative: once all the competencies were

grouped, the procedure was started again to refine the clusters and reduce the model to

the smallest possible number of clusters.

Overall, 14 clusters were identified and are depicted in figure 5.3. Cluster N-

“Channel Conflict Management” is represented in a lighter shade because of the weak

importance rating of its competencies. Three clusters (E, J and L) all linked to K-“Market

Strategy” were identified with both positive and negative feedback loops: the system

relies on both for its survival. Market Strategy (K) must be synchronized with the

markets (outside world) and that is done through its realignment (I) based on the

Market Sensing (E) competencies (thus the negative feedback loop). While K is being

realigned with current or short-term market conditions, it is also evolving so that it is

able to adapt to future or longer-term market condition (positive feedback loop)

forecasted through competency (H). In this perspective of the model, the “strategy

competencies” (I, J, K, L) are the focal point of the system. All the clusters link to that

nexus directly or indirectly: it seems that the ultimate role of many of the other clusters

206

SALES

FIRM

CUSTOMER

Boundary Spanning

C A Understanding

the Customer Sales Integration

B

Data Management

D

Market forecasting

H

Market Strategy

K

Marketing Leadership

G

Offerings Management M

Pricing 1

Offerings Management 3 New

Offerings

2

Strategy Adaptability

J

Offerings Strategy L

Channel Conflict Mgmt N

Figure 5.3 (with interactive links). Holistic emergent perspective C: Emergent systems model. The gray arrows represent clusters with feedback loops.

Strategy Realignment

I

Market Sensing

E

Project Management

F

B2B MARKETING

207

is to complement cluster (K). Furthermore, the “strategy competencies” are very much

dependent on the other clusters and rely on them for input. It should also be noted that

the three competency clusters across the top of the model (A, B, C) were among the

highest rated competencies, albeit the fact that they seem isolated from the rest of the

model. That trio of competencies involves multidisciplinary abilities that transcend

purely technical business marketing skills.

Future research on business marketing competencies

This study identified many areas where educators and practitioners disagreed. All

the competencies that were identified as controversial in perspective 3 of the previous

chapter should be examined. The largest dissent was among the “truly divergent”

competencies, where one group identified a competency as core and the other as

supplemental. In nine out of these ten cases, the educators rated the competencies as

core and the practitioners rated them as supplemental. The latter was unusual when one

considers that on the average, the practitioners had a tendency to rate slightly higher

than the educators (perspective 2, chapter 4). These competencies should be further

examined in order to better understand the reason behind the dichotomous ratings.

The most dissenting ratings between the two groups came from competency N5-

“Integrate CRM and supply chain management”. The median rating for the educators

was 5 (the second highest rating) but 2 for the practitioners (the second lowest rating).

Perplexed by the large difference in opinion between the two groups and worried that

there may have been a problem with the design of some of the competency statements,

208

the researcher began polling the participants of the Delphi and presented this dichotomy

at the 2002 fall ISBM educators’ consortium. It was concluded that the difference in

opinion might have stemmed from a fundamental difference in the way the two groups

interpreted the letters “CRM”. It seemed that the educators saw Customer Relationship

Management as a great concept that in theory is full of potential and can be very

beneficial to business; whereas the practitioners seemed to see it as a very costly process

that is difficult to implement and seldom works. In this case, the dichotomy could have

been experiential: the two groups could have been looking at the same concept through

different points of view.

Another cluster that should be further examined is the group of competencies

that was related to the concept of pricing. In most cases, the educators rated these

competencies higher than the practitioners. The competencies with a high level of

dispersion within one of the groups should also be analyzed; they were identified in the

previous chapter.

Review of the process- Panelists’ perspective

The modified Delphi procedure demanded more time from the panelists than a

typical survey. The panelists were polled at each of the three stages of the Delphic

process and asked to make suggestions for future improvement. Since many of the

participants attended the semiannual conferences of the ISBM, the researcher had the

opportunity to interact face-to-face with a few of the panelists and received feedback on

209

the process. The comments from the panelists regarding their experiences with the

modified Delphi study are described over the next paragraphs.

In general, the feedback from the panelists was short and very positive. One of

the practitioner panelists wrote: “Good process that worked effectively. A well executed

study”. Most of the comments collected through the last survey were similar to the latter.

A few were more detailed: “I think that the overall process was quite revealing and

thought provoking. Re improvements- a focus group to start the process may have

helped to calibrate the experts’ general concerns about marketing and to help design the

first set of questions. (I realize that this is somewhat impractical with a global panel)”.

Some of the panelists offered suggestions such as automating the process through the

use of a web interface.

Many of the panelists found the process itself rewarding. They liked the idea of

being immersed in a variety of ideas from diverse perspectives. One of the panelists

wrote: “The best part was information sharing and gaining insight as to what other

marketers view as important”.

The first two surveys were field-tested and took an average of 15-20 minutes to

complete. Since the last survey contained a third of the items from the second iteration,

it was not tested. The only two pieces negative of feedback collected pertained to the

length and the breadth of the survey. During the second iteration, two of the panelists

were frustrated and complained that the surveys were taking them hours to complete.

The researcher quickly polled about five of the Delphi panelists who were attending one

of the ISBM biannual meetings and they confirmed that the original average time

estimate of 15-20 minutes per iteration was accurate. The time issue was not examined

further.

210

A more common worry among the participants was the breadth of the

competencies that were being identified in the Delphic process. One of the

educators/researchers wrote: “it appears what we are trying to do is to create ‘supermen’

or ‘superwomen’. All these things are important but there are just too many of them. This

needs to be windowed down to manageable proportions which I assume you will do”.

Another panelist explained: “The term ‘market management’ varies widely by market

area. It is often a discrete function that does not get involved in pricing, channel

management issues, etc.”

A few of the participants wanted to make sure that they got their point across the

deluge of competencies that were identified by summing up the traits they feel would

exemplify an exceptional business market manager over the next five years: “What seems

to come out of this is what are really needed are business managers who happen to focus

on marketing, not marketing managers who have a bit of knowledge about the business.

I strongly opt for the former but I don’t think this process will illustrate that nor will you

get what is really needed without some additional screening down to the basics”. Another

participant wrote: “I can only offer one perspective… Today, markets are made up of

customers… In the future … a customer will be a market of ONE. The focus will move to

buyers within customers. Most of this survey focuses on the Supply Chain Concept. Make

the product … sell the product … and then deliver the product. In the future the model

will become much more Demand Chain Driven: Sell the solution, make or assemble the

solution … Deliver the solution. The solution will be made up of a customized mix of

products and services.”

211

Discussion

The purpose of the study was two-fold. First, it was an attempt to design a systematic

approach to developing future oriented competency models. Second, the method was

used to create a competency for an entire occupation.

The methodology was based on a prospective naturalistic inquiry methodology

coupled with a pragmatic inductive analysis approach. The outcome was not to create

new theory but to inductively analyze the occupation. The latter was accomplished

through the use of a qualitative approach with quantitative overtones: a modified Delphi

preceded and supplemented with an environmental scan and a series of review panels.

Since the approach was exploratory, the qualitative portion of the study allowed for the

adaptation of the method as it evolved. The quantitative aspect facilitated the ranking,

ordering and clustering of the qualitative data in a more systematic manner than would

have been possible had the study been conducted qualitatively in its entirety. The

approach worked as expected but the execution of the study was intermittently disturbed

by a series of external events over which the researcher had no control.

In the early phases of the study, the American economy was flourishing, most of

the practitioners contacted were very willing to participate and business-to-business

firms seem to have a vested interest in improving their marketing human capital. Less

than a year later, the dot com bubble burst; and a few months after, many of these

individuals were no longer concerned with the professional development of business

marketers. A few of the people who had been working with the researcher made lateral

moves to other companies, opened consultancies or retired; the others were flooded with

212

work presumably caused by downsizing. As suggested by the director of the ISBM, the

launch of the Delphi was postponed by about five months to allow “the dust to settle”.

Technology glitches. The first iteration was disseminated via the web to facilitate the

processing of the human subject informed consent forms. One week into the first

iteration, the server that housed the project site was hacked into and all the files

destroyed. Since a backup mirror site had been setup, it was promptly activated and only

two panelists were inconvenienced. During that same period, the researcher was

contacted by two panelists who were unable to download the surveys from the website. It

was determined that the problem was due to their company’s firewall; the survey was

attached to an e-mail message and sent to the participants.

The second and third iteration surveys were transmitted as electronic mail

attachments. To increase the rate of return, the participants had the option of sending

the instruments back via e-mail, fax or they could contact the researcher for additional

alternatives such as courier or telephone (the researcher was willing to conduct the

surveys via telephone to facilitate the participants). No one opted to use the latter two

options.

During the third iteration, instead of providing the panelists with a series of

ranges for each competency, the researcher decided to convey the measures of dispersion

and central tendency through a series of visual cues (highlights and underlines). The

surveys were tested on four different versions of Microsoft Word and sent through a fax

machine to ensure readability. Two weeks later, 2 of the surveys came back illegible. The

problem was due to the combination of printing the document from Word 95 and

returning it through a fax machine set to transmit at low resolution. The panelists

213

retransmitted the documents. One of the participants lost the original but agreed to fill

out another copy of the survey within a week.

Alternative means of transmitting or receiving the surveys were contemplated.

An automated telephone system was examined but the idea was rejected due to chronic

problems with that system. Furthermore, it was decided that the surveys were too

lengthy to collect via that medium.

Even with all the minor complications, the researcher is convinced that the most

efficient approach to collecting information from such a Delphi-variant is through a well

constructed website (provided that all the participants have access to an internet

connection). It provides uniformity; and the data collected is already in digital form and

can be automatically transferred to a database for analysis.

Improving the process. The approach used in this study was experimental. As the study

evolved many glitches had to be corrected. The researcher will suggest a few steps that

may streamline the process if a similar modified Delphi approach is used to collect data.

Dealing with ambiguous data. A process should be put in place to identify and

clarify ambiguous data. The latter should be done as closely as possible to the

submission of the surveys. In this study, the telephone and e-mail were used. The

latter was most efficient.

Understanding the population. It is important to familiarize oneself with the

group that is participating in the Delphi so that a research strategy with

contingencies can be planned. One could argue that having a researcher from the

population conduct the study can save time. Parts of this study were conducted

with the assistance of the Executive Director of the ISBM, a practitioner turned

214

academic with decades of experience. During the analysis of the data, there was a

tendency on his part to make assumptions: an understandable reaction for

someone with such extensive experience and knowledge of the field but it can

have detrimental repercussions on the neutrality and the validity of the findings.

The ideal situation may be to have competency modeling projects managed by a

team composed of both Training and Subject Matter specialists.

Panel composition. In the initial design of the study, the researcher had

anticipated a Delphi panel composed of three groups of experts: practitioners,

educators and stakeholders. The stakeholders were defined as individuals whose

work performance is impacted directly by the performance of business marketers

(e.g. VPs of marketing, CEOs) or whose job function supports or is supported by

business marketing (e.g. sales, pricing). Ten of these individuals were nominated

and invited to participate but less than half of the nominees completed the first

iteration. The group was dismantled due to its small size. The individuals who did

participate in the first iteration contributed to the development of the

preliminary model but did not rate the competencies as a group. Having a third

stratum of experts complete the process would have increased the richness of the

model.

Sampling. The validity of the findings is directly related to the expertise of the

panelists. Having access to the right people is critical. In this study, the ISBM

provided the initial contacts. Once a core group of experts had been identified, a

snowball was conducted. The latter was not very successful with the

educators/researchers; most of who also worked as consultants, and in many

cases had signed confidentiality clauses with their best clients preventing them

215

from divulging the clients’ identities or any information pertaining to their

clients’ competency modeling efforts.

Environmental scanning. The environmental scanning process was critical in

acclimating the researcher with the business-to-business marketing culture. It

also provided various insights into the occupation. During that phase of the

study, the researcher realized that the original timeline would have to be adapted

to the panelists’ schedule: many of these individuals traveled constantly and

sometimes were unavailable for periods of two to three weeks.

Systems Model. There can be utility in developing a systems perspective of the

emergent model. The latter can allow the researcher to identify central key

competencies that are at the core of the model. These “nexus” competencies may

not necessarily be the highest rated but most of the other core competencies

depend on their outputs. In this study, segmentation was such a concept: many of

the other competencies cannot be accomplished successfully if segmentation is

done incorrectly.

The downside is that the design of such a model is a qualitative exercise

and is very time consuming because the researcher must implicitly understand all

the nuances that exist within each competency statement. The analysis of the

systems model developed in this study took a few hundred hours to design and it

is about three quarters complete (it does not account for relationships within the

individual clusters –except to some degree, the cluster “Offerings Management”).

Simplifying the analysis. The analysis was conducted by reducing the data into

manageable clusters. The following suggestions may help facilitate the analysis.

216

Clustering algorithm. Various means of clustering were examined and rejected

due to the assumption that the data collected was qualitative and subjective thus

ordinal at best. The sum of mean ranks (from each group) could be used as an

alternative to the clustering approach used in this study to identify the various

strata. Although the latter could be a quick method for clustering the

competencies, it does not take into consideration outliers and extreme values.

Additionally, the level of detail may be reduced: the investigator considered using

the sum of mean ranks in the early phases of the analysis and 4 main strata (as

opposed to 13) were identified after the isolation of the “controversial”

competencies.

Surveys and scale. The quantitative surveys used a 6-point Likert-type scale

where ratings 4-6 identified a competency as core and 1-3 as supplemental. There

was a tendency to rate the competencies in the middle of the “core” range (rating

5). The data analysis would have been easier had overall dispersion been larger.

One alternative to counteract that problem can be to use the entire scale (1-6) to

rate the core competencies and identify supplemental competencies through a

nominal variable.

Final comments. The study’s findings raised many questions such as: now that the

competencies have been identified, will it be possible to mold the perfect business

marketer through training? If some of the competencies cannot be trained for, how does

one identify an individual who possesses these competencies? Will these competencies

be cherished in all types of corporate cultures? Many other issues can be raised and

should perhaps be studied.

217

Over the past thirty months, the researcher has had the opportunity to scrutinize

business-to-business market management and identify its distinct characteristics.

Business marketing seems to be a nascent field that is still evolving: there may be a need

for more inductive research to better understand and define the concepts involved in the

development of the occupation. Currently, business marketers seem to rely mostly on

“best practices” and “ready to use” tools to carryout their functions; and there does not

seem to be a large effort to research and understand why these “best practices” work.

Qualitative or mixed method studies that focus on depth instead of breadth can solidify

and refine the core concepts and advance theory. Unfortunately, various talks with junior

faculty members from a variety of universities seem to indicate that qualitative research

is frowned upon and not rewarded in the business marketing field. Perhaps an entity

such as the ISBM could encourage interest in such studies by providing adequate

funding to investigators interested in epistemologically-oriented research looking into

business market management. Investing in marketing education research and improving

its theoretical base can greatly benefit the occupation (Smart, Kelley and Conant (1999);

Howard and Ryans (1993); Hansen, Carlsson & Walden, 1988; Kastiel (1986); Walker

(1986); Piercy, Evans and Martin (1982); Saunders, 1980)

Conclusion

What traits will define an exceptional Business-to-Business marketer over the

next five years? It can be concluded that that the exemplary performers will possess the

following traits (not arranged by importance and highlighted in fig. 5.3):

218

Customers. Exceptional business marketers have a deep understanding of their

customers that goes beyond numbers and statistics: they understand their customers

needs so well that they are able to deliver solutions that integrate seamlessly into their

customers’ processes.

Firm and boundary scanning. They have a good grasp of their firm’s core competencies

and use the latter to maximize value creation. They are comfortable working and

collaborating with other functions within the firm to ensure the integration of marketing

and marketing data in the business’ decision-making process. They make sure that the

marketing strategy is aligned with the overall corporate strategy; and forecast the impact

of marketing decisions on current operations. They ensure that all the other functions

understand the marketing plan and help implement it.

Sales. These marketers collaborate with the sales function to align the marketing and

sales plans; and develop a relationship that is mutually beneficial to both functions.

Data management. They use data from multiple sources to support marketing decisions

and establish performance metrics for the targeted segments and other vital marketing

functions. They establish processes to measure the ROI of marketing efforts; and

measure customer loyalty and customer satisfaction by segment. Overall, it was more

important that b-to-b marketers be able to manage and synthesize the results of analyses

and less important that they be able to conduct detailed (statistical or qualitative)

analyses themselves.

219

Market segmentation/Market sensing. They use “innovative” market segmentation

criteria to aggregate customers with similar needs and behaviors. A few experts did warn

that in some cases, a segment will be composed of ONE customer and it is critical that

the b2b marketer is able to identify these instances. They assess current brand positions

in targeted segments and compare the firm’s competitive advantage to its competitors.

These marketers analyze value chains and value webs and are keen at identifying:

profitable segments

customers with a high lifetime value

activities or customers that are draining value from the firm

sources for developing a sustainable competitive advantage

It should be noted that the adjective “innovative” was used by many of the experts to

describe various aspects of the segmentation process.

Market Forecasting. They anticipate change and its impact on business.

Strategy/offerings strategy. Strategy is linked to 2 concepts: realignment and

adaptability. The exceptional marketer is able to design strategy that can be adapted to

changing market conditions and evolve with dynamic markets. Periodically, strategy is

revisited and corrected (based on market sensing efforts) so that it is realigned to the

markets. There are two aspects of that realignment that were not clearly captured in the

emergent model (but were present in the first iteration data). The first one involves a

short-term realignment process (realigning strategy to current market conditions)

whereas the second is more long-term and linked to forecasting (adapting strategy based

220

on market forecasts). It implies that marketing would have to periodically revisit its

strategy (even if it seems to be working well) to assess:

its alignment to the current market conditions

the degree to which it will be adaptable to meet future market conditions.

Offerings management. They develop value propositions for new offerings based on

benefits to the customer rather than the offering features; and build an offerings

portfolio around customers’ needs and behaviors rather than technologies. They involve

marketing early in the offering development process. They understand the concept of

value and its relationship to pricing. They maximize value through bundled offerings and

recognize the role of service in differentiating these offerings.

Adaptability and realignment also play an important role in offerings

management. The exceptional business marketer manages pricing over generations of an

offering. They develop un-bundling and re-bundling strategies to cope with changes in

the markets and discontinue ineffective offerings efficiently.

Project management. They demonstrate empathy for a wide cross-section of people and

understand how technology impacts business marketing processes. They forecast the

resources (people/skill sets, information, technology, …) required to carryout the

marketing plan effectively and balance the resources required for product development

(time to market) and market development (time to market penetration). They

experiment with innovative ideas using calculated risk.

221

Marketing leadership. They adapt well to a changing business environment and can align

the marketing team around a vision and a strategy, even amid a tumultuous market

environment. They behave ethically. They protect the brand equity (two of the

participants went as far as saying that business marketers should protect the brand even

if it means putting their job on the line). They creatively identify market opportunities

and effectively use alliances to create value.

Closing comments. From the point of view of the competencies as a system, the most

critical concept identified was “segmentation”, a concept that is omnipresent throughout

the model. Most of the marketing processes and technical competencies rely heavily on

the accuracy or the appropriateness of the segmentation scheme. Segmentation is

somewhat the technical manifestation of truly “understanding the customer”, the top

competency out of the entire pool of 153. Furthermore, it is at the heart of strategy.

222

KER

NEL

TIE

R 2

TIE

R 3

TIE

R 4

TIE

R 5

Un

ders

tan

din

g t

he c

ust

om

er

Reco

gn

izin

g a

nd

co

mm

un

icati

ng

valu

e

Inte

gra

tin

g m

ark

eti

ng

an

d s

ale

s

Bo

un

dary

sp

an

nin

g

An

tici

pati

ng

/ad

ap

tin

g t

o c

han

ge

Develo

pin

g o

fferi

ng

s

- D

esi

gn

ing

ad

ap

tab

le c

om

peti

tive m

ark

et

stra

teg

y -

-

Ad

ap

tive s

eg

men

tati

on

-

- M

ain

tain

ing

a c

om

peti

tive a

dvan

tag

e -

- O

pti

miz

ing

mark

eti

ng

pro

cess

es

- -

Man

ag

ing

mark

eti

ng

op

era

tio

ns

-

- M

ark

et

sen

sin

g -

-

Mo

nit

ori

ng

th

e e

vo

luti

on

of

mark

eti

ng

str

ate

gy -

Controversial core (Miscellaneous set)

- Market research -

- Pricing -

Figure 5.4 (with interactive links). Holistic perspective: Emergent model (EM) highlighting controversial core. Strata based on the perceived importance of core competencies

by expert practitioners and educators.

References

224

Alderson, W. & Halbert, M. H. (1968). Men motives and markets. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Alderson, W. (1957). Marketing behavior and executive action: A functionalist approach to marketing theory. Homewood, Il: R. D. Irwin.

Alderson, W. (1965). Dynamic marketing behavior: A functionalist theory of marketing. Homewood, Il: R. D. Irwin.

Alexander, R. S., Surface, F. M., Elder, R. F. & Alderson, W. (1940). Marketing. New York: Ginn and Co.

Amunson, D. A. (1993). Community college community services/continuing education directors: Competencies needed for future leadership. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University.

Anderson, J. C., & Narus, J. A. (1999). Business market management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Antonacopoulou, E., & FitzGerald, L. (1996). Reframing competency in management development (London). Human Resource Management Journal, 6(1), 27-40+.

Ash, P. (1948). The periodical press and the Taft-Hartley Act. Public Opinion Quarterly, 12, 266-271.

Ashkenas, R., Ulrich, D., Jick, T., & Kerr, S. (1995). The boundaryless organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ashkew, K. (1984). Industry survey: Projection to 1990. National Underwriter, 88(38), 3-7.

Babbie, E. (1989). Practicing social research, 5th Ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Berelson, B. (1948). Content analysis in communications research. New York: Free Press.

Birdir, K. (1998). Identified competencies of research chefs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University.

Bogart, L., & Moran, W. T. (1986). What forces shape the future of advertising research?/ Advertising research: What is it all coming to? Journal of Advertising Research 26(1), 99-110.

225

Boyatzis, R. E. (1982). The competent manager: A model for effective performance. New York: Wiley.

Breiner, S., Cuhls, K., & Grupp, H. (1994). Technology Foresight using a Delphi approach. R & D Management, 24(2), 141-154.

Brown, D. (1987). Leadership and organization transformation: A competency model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Fielding Institute.

Byham, W. C. (1999, February). Grooming next millennium leaders. HRMagazine, 44(2). 46-50.

Calantone, R. J., & Di Benedetto, C. A. (1987). A comprehensive review of the tourism forecasting literature. Journal of Travel Research, 26(2), 28-40.

Cegles, K. A. (1998). Emerging issues affecting distance education research and practice in higher education: A global futures perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, College of education, Pennsylvania State University.

Choudhury, V., & Sampler, J. L. (1997). Information specificity and environmental scanning: An economic perspective. MIS Quarterly, 21(1), 25-53.

Clamon, F. (1986). Competencies needed for entry-level positions as computer programmers or programmer/analysts in Tennessee manufacturing industries (data processing literacy). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University.

Cope, T. R. (1995). Future trends of trade and industrial teacher education in the United States: A Delphi approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University.

Costa, J. (1995). An empirically-based review of the concept of environmental scanning International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 7(7), 4.

Costa, J., & Teare, R. (2000). Developing an environmental scanning process in the hotel sector. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 12(3), 156-169.

Couger, J. D. (1988). Key human resource issues in IS in the 1990s: Views of IS executives versus human resource executives. Information & Management, 14(4), 161-175.

Croates, J. (1997). UK Delphi report merits study by R&D leaders. Research Technology Management, 40(1), 5-7.

226

Czinkota, M. R., & Ronkainen, I. A. (1997). International business and trade in the next decade: Report from a Delphi study. Journal of International Business Studies, 28(4), 827-844.

Dalkey, N. C. (1969, June). The Delphi method: An experimental study of group opinion (Report No. RM-5888-PR). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

Daniel, T. L. (1990). Identifying critical leadership competencies of manufacturing supervisors in a major electronics corporation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.

Delbecq, A. L., Van de Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D. H. (1977). Groups techniques for planning. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.

Dembo, M. H. (1991). Applying educational psychology in the classroom, 4rd Ed. White Plains, NY: Longman Publishing Group.

Denzin, N. K. (1989). The research act, 3rd Ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall

Dixon, D. F. (1999). Some late nineteenth-century antecedents of marketing theory. Journal of Macromarketing, 19(2), 115-125.

Doke, E. R., & Swanson, N. E. (1995). Decision variables for selecting prototyping in information systems development: A Delphi study of MIS managers. Information & Management 29(4), 173-183.

Dull, R. (1988). Delphi forecasting: Market research method of the 90’s. Marketing News 22(18), 17-18.

Dye, W. M., Best, D. J. Jr., Cole, K. D., Essman, R. P., & Williams, H. D. (1988). Predicting property and casualty issues-- 2001. CPCU Journal, 41(2), 122-127.

Encyclopædia Britannica Online [World Wide web- On-line]Available: http://www.eb.com:180/

Erffmeyer, R. C., Erffmeyer, E. S., & Lane, I. M. (1986). The Delphi technique: An empirical evaluation of the optimal number of rounds. Group & Organization Management 11(1-2), 120-129.

Everett, D. R. (1988). Competencies for information systems workers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Huston.

227

Ewing, D. M. (1991). Future competencies needed in the preparation of secretaries in the State of Illinois using the Delphi technique. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

Ferrell, O. C. (1995). Improving marketing education in the 1990’s: A faculty retrospective and perspective view. Education Review, 5(fall), 1-6.

Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327-358.

Fowler, F. J. (1993). Survey research methods, 2nd Ed. In Applied Research Method Series, Vol. 1. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Frazee, V. (1996, September). Competencies emerge in hiring, training and pay. Personnel Journal, 75(9), 24.

Garde, V. D., & Patel, R. R. (1985). Technological forecasting for power generation- A study using the Delphi technique. Long Range Planning, 18(4), 73-80.

Geyer, F. (1995). The challenge of sociocybernetics. Kybernetes, 24(4), 6-32.

Ghosal, A. (1999). Second order cybernetics - implications in real life. Kybernetes, 28(4), 377-384.

Goldstein, E. R. (1995). Competency models help identify promising candidates. Healthcare financial management, 49(5), 76-80.

Gray, K. C., & Herr, E. L. (1998). Workforce education the basics. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Greengard, S. (1999). Competency management delivers spectacular corporate gains. Workforce, 78(3), 104-105.

Hansen, S., Carlsson, C, & Walden, P. (1988). Marketing education: Present needs and future challenges. European Journal of Marketing, 22(3), 48-61.

Hatush, Z., & Skitmore, M. (1997). Evaluating contractor prequalification data: Selection criteria and project success factors. Construction Management and Economics 15(2), 129-147.

Hein, S. L., & Glazer-Waldman, H. R. (1988). Identification of strategic planning skills for managers. The Healthcare Supervisor, 6(3) 58-67.

228

Helmer, O. (1966, December). The use of the Delphi technique in problems of educational innovations. (Report No. P3499). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

Helmer, O. (1975). Foreward. In H. A. Linstone & M. Turoff (Eds.) The Delphi method (xix-xx). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Holsti, O. R. (1969) Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Howard, D. G. (1993). What role should marketing theory play in marketing education: A cross-national comparison of marketing educators. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 5(2), 29-44.

Huck, S. W. (2000). Reading statistics and research, 3rg Ed. NY: Addison Wesley.

Iverson, S. C., & Jorgensen, J. E. (1986). Manufacturing systems Delphi study. IIE Transactions, 18(2), 158-166.

Jagodka, R. F. (1998). Skills needed for effective international marketing: training implications. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of LaVerne.

Jones, R. G. (1997, Summer). Raising the bar: Using competencies to enhance employee performance / Managing individual performance: An approach to designing an effective performance management system. Personnel Psychology, 50(2), 529-532.

Journal of Accountancy. (1998, February). New skills for a new world. Journal of Accountancy, 185(2), 19.

Kastiel, D. L. (1986). Marketing education: Why Johnny can’t market. Business marketing, 71(11), 100-104.

Katz, A. A. (1996). Defining competencies for the medical illustrator. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Chicago.

Kay, M. (1999). Business to business marketing [Review of the book Business to business marketing]. Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 27(2), 281-282.

Keech, K. M. (1998). Industry-based competencies for entry-level retail management positions: A national Delphi study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University.

229

Kelley, R. S. (1998). Competencies of the twenty century superstore manager: Implications for professional postsecondary education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The College of William and Mary.

Khorramshahgol, R, & Moustakis, V. S. (1988). Delphic Hierarchy Process (DHP): A methodology for priority setting derived from the Delphi method and Analytical Hierarchy Process. European Journal of Operational Research 37(3), 347-355.

Khorramshahgol, R., & Gousty, Y. (1986). Delphic Goal Programming (DGP): A multi-objective cost/benefit approach to R&D portfolio analysis. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, EM33(3), 172-176

Kotler, P. (1999). Kotler on marketing. NY, NY: The Free Press.

Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. In The Sage CommText Series, Vol. 5. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Krohe, J. Jr. (1997, Nov/Dec). What do managers do? Really. Across the Board. 34(10). 20-21

Lawler, E. E. III (1996, Nov/Dec). Competencies: A poor foundation for the new pay. Compensation and Benefits Review. 20-.

Lee, S. (1994). A preliminary study of the competencies, work outputs, and roles of human resource development professionals in the republic of China on Taiwan: A cross-cultural competency study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University.

Levine, H. Z. (1997, July/August). Raising the bar: Using competencies to enhance employee performance. Compensation and Benefits Review, 29(4), 62-63.

Lunsford, D. A., & Fussel, B. C. (1993). Marketing business services in Central Europe. The Journal of Services Marketing 7(1), 13-22.

Matthews, B. C. (1910). A study of a New York daily. Independent, 68, 82-86.

McCarthy, K. J. (1992). Comment on the “Analytic Delphic Method”. International Journal of Production Economics 27(2), 135-137

McClelland, D. C. (1973, January). Testing for competence rather than intelligence. American Psychologist 28, 1-14.

230

McClelland, D. C. (1993) Introduction. In Spencer, L. M., & Spencer, S. M., Competence at work: Models for superior performance (pp. 3-8). NY, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

McDowell, Callie (1996, September). Achieving workforce competence. Personnel Journal.

McLagan, P. (1996, January). “Great ideas revisited: Competency models”. Training and Development, 50(1), 60-

McLagan, P. A. (1980, December). “Competency models”. Training and Development Journal, 34 (12), p. 22-26.

Mettler, P. H., & Baumgartner, T. (1998). Large-scale participatory co-shaping of technological developments. Futures 30(6), 535-554.

Mirabile, R. J. (1997, August). “Everything you wanted to know about competency modeling”. Training and Development, 51(8), 73-77.

Mohr, J. (2000). The marketing of high technology product and services: Implications for curriculum content and design. Journal of Marketing Education 22(3), 246-259.

Montgomery, J. F. (1983). The identification of entering competencies for transportation safety professionals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M. University.

Moore, G. A. (1999). Crossing the chasm (Rev. ed). New York: HarperBusiness.

Morley, R. E. (1990). Sneak preview of the 1990’s. Manufacturing systems 8(4), 19-23.

Murry, J. W. Jr., & Hammons, J. O., (1995). Delphi: A versatile methodology for conducting qualitative research. Review of Higher education, 18(4), 423-436.

Naisbitt, J, & Aburdene, P. (1990). Megatrends 2000: Ten new directions for the 1990’s. 1rst ed. New York : Morrow.

Naisbitt, J. (1982). Megatrends : ten new directions transforming our lives. New York: Warner Books.

231

Neil, G. C., Black, R. T., & Rabianski, J. S. (1999). Operational and organizational issues facing corporate real estate executives and managers. The journal of Real Estate Research, 17(3), 281-299.

Nichols, D. P. (1998). Choosing an Intraclass Correlation Coefficient [On-Line]. SPSS Keywords, Number 67. Available: http://www.spss.com/tech/stat/articles/whichicc.htm

Nimgade, A, & Sonk, J. (1991). Ordinal quantification of the concept of technology through pooled consensus. R&D Management 21(1), 11-19.

O’Brien, E. M. & Deans, K. R. (1995). The position of marketing education: A student versus employer perspective. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 13(2), 47-53.

Ono, R. & Wedemeyer, D. J. (1994). Assessing the validity of the Delphi technique. Futures, 26(3), 289-304.

Parenté, F. J., Anderson, J. K., Myers, P. & O’Brian, T. (1984). An examination of the factors contributing to Delphi accuracy. Journal of Forecasting, 3(2), 173-182.

Passsig, D. (1997). Imen-Delphi: A Delphi variant procedure for emergence. Human Organization 56(1), 53-63.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. New Bury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Pesh, M. (1996). Defining and understanding the focused factory: A Delphi survey. Production and Inventory Management Journal 37(2), 32-40.

Pfohl, H. (1997). Logistics. State of the art. Human Systems Management, 16(3), 153-158.

Phillips, D. F. (1999). Pioneers in providing a competency inventory. JAMA. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 281(1), 24.

Piercy, N, Evans, M., & Martin, M. (1982). Postgraduate marketing curricula in the United Kingdom. European Journal of Marketing, 16(1), 3-17.

Piontek, S. (1985). Competition will create changes. National Underwriter – Property & Casulty/risk &benefits management ed. 89(5), 38-

Polanin, W. R. (1990). Technical core competencies of computer integrated manufacturing technicians. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

232

Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79-92.

Preble, J. F. (1984). The selection of Delphi panels for strategic planning purposes. Strategic Management Journal, 2(5), 157-171.

Raaijmakers, Q. A. W. (1999). Effectiveness of different missing data treatments in surveys with Likert-type data: Introducing the relative mean substitution approach. Educational and Psychological Measurement 59(5), 725-748.

Razza, J. C. Jr. (1984). Insurance experts predict the industry’s future. Life Association News, 79(8), 30-38.

Rifkin, K. I., & Fineman, M. (1999). Developing technical managers--first you need a competency model. Research Technology Management, 42(2), 53-57.

Robeson, J. F. (1988). The future of business logistics: A Delphi study predicting future trends in business logistics. Journal of business logistics 9(2), 1-15.

Rotfeld, H. (1997). Marketing education is not the marketing business. Marketing News, 31(16), 16-18.

Rothwell, W. J. (1996). Beyond training and development. New York: AMACOM.

Rothwell, W. J., & Kazanas, H. (1998). Mastering the instructional Design Process: A systematic approach. San Francisco, CA : Jossey-Bass.

Rothwell, W. J., & Lindholm, J. E. (1999). Competency identification, modeling and assessment in the USA. International Journal of Training and Development, 3(2), 90-105.

Rothwell, W. J., & Sredl, H. J. (1992). The ASTD reference guide to professional human resource development roles and competencies (2nd ed. ). Amherst, MA: HRD Press.

Rothwell, W. J., Prescott, R. K., & Taylor, M. W. (1996). Strategic human resource leader. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing.

Rothwell, W. J., Prescott, R., & Taylor, M. (1998). Strategic human resource leader: How to prepare your organization for the 6 key trends shaping the future. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black.

233

Rothwell, W. J., Sanders, E. S., & Sopher, J. G. (1999). ASTD models for workplace learning and performance: Roles, competencies and outputs. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development.

Rowe, G., & Wright, G. (1999). The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: Issues and analysis. International Journal of Forecasting 15(4), 353-375.

Rudolph, R. D. (1999). Desirable competencies of hospitality graduates in year 2007. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.

Sanchez, J. I. (2000). The art of competency models: Pinpointing critical success factors [Review of the book The art and science of competency models: Pinpointing critical success factors]. Personnel Psychology 53(2), 509-511.

Saunders, J. (1980). The degeneration of Marketing education. Management Decision, 18(5), 223-235.

Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass Correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin 86(2), 420-428.

Skinner, W. (1974). The focused factory. Harvard Business Review 52(3), 113-121.

Smart, D. T., Kelley, C. A., & Conant, J. S. (1999). Marketing education in the year 2000: Change observed and challenges anticipated. Journal of Marketing Education. 21(3), 206-216.

Smith, D. (1990). Physician managerial skills: Assessing the critical competencies of the physician executive. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Case Western Reserve University.

Speed, G. J. (1893). Do newspapers now give the news. The Forum, 15, 705-711.

Spencer, L. M., & Spencer, S. M. (1993). Competence at work: Models for superior performance. NY, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Taylor, R. E. (1984). Using the Delphi method to define marketing problems. Business 34(4), 16-23.

Taylor, R. E., & Meinhardt, D. J. (1985). Defining computer information needs for small business: A Delphi method. Journal of Small Business Management 23(2), 3-10.

Tenney, A. A. (1912). The scientific analysis of the press. Independent, 73, 895-898.

234

The CPA Journal. (1998, January). AICPA competency model for the new finance professional. The CPA Journal, 68(1). 9.

Theory in marketing: Selected essays. Edited by Cox, R & Alderson, W. (1950). Chicago: R. D. Irwin.

Thurow, L. (1996). The future of capitalism: How today’s economic forces shape tomorrow’s world. New York: William Morrow and Company.

Toh, K. L. (1997). Constructing and validating competencies of sport managers (COSM) instrument: A model development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.

U.S. Army (1999, December 17). CP-14 - Appendix M: Leadership effectiveness framework. [On-Line]. Available: http:\\www.cpol.army.mil/train/acteds/CP_14/appm.html.

Uniform guidelines on employee selection procedures (1978). Federal register, 43, No 166, 38290-38309.

United States Office of Personnel Management (1999, December 17). Guide to senior executive service qualifications. [On-Line]. Available: http:\\www.opm.gov/ses/html/sesguide.htm.

Ushio, S. (1993). The future of hi-tech: Forecast for the next decade. Tokyo Business Today 61(4), 42-46.

Vickers, B. (1992) Using GDSS to examine the future European automobile industry. Futures 24(8), 789-813.

Walker, B. J. (1986). Professional marketing education aids professors and practitioners. Marketing News, 20(15), 16-18.

Waller, K. M. (1999). Filling the knowledge gap. Journal of Accountancy, 187(4), 60-62.

Wheeler, D. R. (1988). Content Analysis: An Analytical Technique for International Marketing Research. International Marketing Review 5(4), 34-41.

White, R. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review 66, 279-333.

235

Will-Harris, D. (2000). Georgia & Verdana typefaces designed for the screen (finally) [On-Line]. Available: http://www.will-harris.com/verdana-georgia.htm

Wright, D. (1998). Analysis of the market for access to broadband telecommunications in the year 2000. Computers & Operations Research 25(2), 127-138.

Yaffee, R. A (1998). Enhancement of reliability analysis: Applications of Intraclass Correlations with SPSS/Windows v.8. [On-Line]. Statistics and Social Sciences- Group New York University. Available: http://www.nyu.edu/its/socsci/Docs/intracls.html

Yeung, A. K. (1996) Competencies for HR professionals: An interview with Richard E. Boyatzis. Human Resource Management. 35(1), 119-131.

Young, Y. W., Keng, K. A., & Tan, L. (1989). A Delphi forecast for the Singapore tourism industry: Future scenario and marketing implications. International Marketing Review, 6(3), 35-47.

Zelauskas, B. A., Howes, D. G., & Christmyer, C. (1988). Bridging the gap: Theory to practice – Part II, research applications. Nursing Management 19(9), 50-53.

Zemke, R., & Zemke, S. (1999). Putting competencies to work. Training, 36(1), 70-76.

Appendix A

List of journals and periodicals used in content analysis

236

1) The Academy of Management Executive; Ada

2) Academy of Management Journal; Mississippi State

3) Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review; Mississippi

State

4) Academy of Marketing Science. Journal; Greenvale

5) Advances in International Marketing; Greenwich

6) American Business Review; West Haven

7) Asia Pacific International Journal of Marketing; Hong Kong

8) Asia Pacific Journal of Management; Singapore

9) Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics; Bradford

10) Asian Business; Hong Kong

11) Australian Business Monthly; Sydney

12) Baylor Business Review; Waco

13) Baylor Business Studies; Waco

14) British Journal of Industrial Relations; London

15) British Journal of Management; Chichester

16) B to B; Chicago

17) Business Africa; New York

18) Business America; Washington

19) Business Asia; New York

20) Business China; New York

21) Business Communication Quarterly; New York

22) Business Communications Review; Hinsdale

23) Business Management; Greenwich

24) Business Marketing Digest; Dorking

25) Business Mexico; Mexico City

26) Business Strategy Review; Oxford

27) Business Studies

28) Business Trends; Petaluma

29) Business Week; Industrial/technology edition; New York

30) Business and Economic Dimensions; Gainesville

31) Business and Economic History; Williamsburg

237

32) Business and Economic Review; Columbia

33) Business in Brief; New York

34) Business; Atlanta

35) Business; London

36) Canadian Business Conditions; Toronto

37) Canadian Business Review; Ottawa

38) Canadian Business; Toronto

39) The Chicago MBA; Chicago

40) Chief Executive; London

41) Chief Executive; New York

42) Competitive Intelligence Magazine; Washington

43) Competitive Intelligence Review; Washington

44) Consulting to Management; Burlingame

45) East European Markets; London

46) Emerging European Markets; London

47) European Business Journal; London

48) European Business Review; Bradford

49) European Journal of Marketing; Bradford

50) Executive Development; Bradford

51) Financial Times of London World Business Weekly; London

52) Forbes; New York

53) Fortune; New York

54) Harvard Business Review; Boston

55) Inc; Boston

56) Indiana Business Review; Bloomington

57) Industrial Management; Mississauga

58) Industrial Management; Norcross

59) Industrial Marketing & Purchasing; Bradford

60) Industrial Marketing Management; New York

61) International Marketing Review; London

62) International Organization; Cambridge

63) International Review of Strategic Management; Chichester

238

64) Irish Marketing Review; Dublin

65) Ivey Business Journal; London

66) Journal of Advertising Research; New York

67) Journal of Advertising; Provo

68) Journal of Applied Business Research; Laramie

69) Journal of Applied Management Studies; Abingdon

70) Journal of Applied Management; Walnut Creek

71) Journal of Asian Business; Ann Arbor

72) The Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing; Santa Barbara

73) Journal of Business Research; New York

74) Journal of Business Strategies; Huntsville

75) The Journal of Business Strategy; Boston

76) The Journal of Business and Economic Studies; Fairfield

77) Journal of Euro - Marketing; New York

78) The Journal of European Business; New York

79) Journal of Global Marketing; New York

80) Journal of Interactive Marketing; New York

81) Journal of International Business Studies; Washington

82) Journal of International Marketing and Marketing Research; Brixham

83) Journal of International Marketing; Chicago

84) Journal of Macromarketing; Boulder

85) Journal of Management; Bloomington

86) Journal of Management; Greenwich

87) Journal of Managerial Issues; Pittsburg

88) Journal of Marketing Education; Boulder

89) Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice; Statesboro

90) Journal of Marketing; New York

91) The Journal of Product and Brand Management; Santa Barbara Journal of Sales

Management; Bradford

92) Journal of World Business; Greenwich

93) Management Education and Development; London

94) Management Focus; New York

239

95) Management International Review; Wiesbaden

96) Management Japan; Tokyo

97) Management Learning; Thousand Oaks

98) Management Quarterly; Washington

99) Management Research News; Bradford

100) Management Review; New York

101) Managing Service Quality; Bedford

102) Marketing & Media Decisions; New York

103) Marketing Communications; New York

104) Marketing Health Services; Chicago

105) Marketing Intelligence & Planning; Bradford

106) Marketing Management; Chicago

107) Marketing News; Chicago

108) Marketing Research; Chicago

109) Marketing Science; Providence

110) Marketing Times; Cleveland

111) Marketing Tools; Stamford

112) Marketing Week; London

113) Marketing and Research Today; Amsterdam

114) Marketing/Communications; New York

115) Marketing; London

116) Marketing; Munich

117) Multinational Business Review; Detroit

118) Multinational Business; London

119) New Management; Los Angeles

120) New Zealand Management; Auckland

121) The Quarterly Review of Marketing; Cookham

122) Revue Française du Marketing; Paris

123) Sales & Marketing Manager Canada; Scarborough

124) Sales and Marketing Management; New York

125) Southern Advertising/Markets; Atlanta

126) Southern Business Review; Statesboro

240

127) Strategic Management Journal; Chichester

128) Target Marketing; Philadelphia

129) Thunderbird International Business Review; New York

130) University of Michigan Business Review; Ann Arbor

131) What's New in Marketing; London

132) Worldbusiness; New York

241

Appendix B

Human subjects

242

Welcome to the 1rst iteration

Thank you for being part of the expert panel that will help develop the future-oriented Business-to-Business marketing competency model. We estimate your commitment will be less than an hour spread over 3 iterative questionnaires (about 15-20 minutes per questionnaire). You will be asked to identify and rate the competencies you perceive will define an exceptional B-to-B market manager based on your expertise and experiences. Your participation in this research is confidential. Only Allen Stines (the researcher) and Ralph Oliva (the Executive Director of ISBM) will have access to your identity and to information that can be associated with your identity. In the event of publication of this study, no identifying information will be disclosed aside from the participant list. To make sure your participation is confidential, all responses will be directed to an e-mail address or fax number that has been setup specifically for this study. Confidentiality of documents submitted electronically is limited by the technology of the Internet. If you have any questions regarding this study titled "Identification of Competencies Defining an Exceptional B-to-B Marketer", feel free to contact: Allen Stines at allen1@psu.edu or Ralph Oliva at rao8@psu.edu. This study is part of the researcher's doctoral program at the Pennsylvania State University. Even though this type of study does not pose any anticipated risks to your health, Penn State requires that all participants in studies conducted at the University be provided with an informed consent form highlighting their right to withdraw from the study at any time. Please read the "informed consent" statement, and click on the button at the bottom of the page. We would like to thank you in advance for your help. This study would not be possible without your assistance. You will receive a copy of the results as soon as the data is analyzed. Thank you, Ralph Oliva, Executive Director ISBM & Allen Stines, Researcher

Informed consent to participate in the research By clicking on the following link, I agree to participate in a scientific investigation of Allen Stines, as an authorized part of the education and research program of the Pennsylvania State University. I understand the information given to me, and I have received answers to any questions I may have had about the research procedure. I will receive no compensation for participating. My participation in this research is voluntary, I have the right to decline to answer specific questions or withdraw from this study at any time by notifying Allen.

Begin iteration 1

243

244

245

246

247

Appendix C

Study portal

www.B2Bcompetencies.com

248

August 29, 2003

Welcome to the ISBM B-to-B market management competencies study homepage. We are currently researching and identifying the key competencies that will define exceptional B-2-B market managers over the next five years (research phases).

Professional competencies (along with technology and processes) are the building blocks of a firm's core competency. Optimizing and aligning professional competencies to an organization's strategy can be the key to increasing efficiencies thus, unleashing performance.

Site navigation tips

Any time you want to come back to this page, click the site banner (above). The information in this site has been divided into four main categories (left).

● "What?" covers the study's basics ● "Why?" covers the study's primary purpose and the potential uses of the

results. ● "Who?" covers the individuals and organizations involved in this research

effort. ● "How?" covers the research methods

If you would like to get additional information about the study or discuss an issue that is not covered here, please contact us.

Home | What? | Why? | Who? | How? | Contacts | ISBM | Penn State

University

Copyright 2001 - Last modified oct 14, 01 by Webmaster

249

What?

B-to-B market management can be compared to a complex art where the winners are the artists who are able to properly scan the landscape and interpret all its intricacies onto a canvas. Like artists, successful marketers must be able to scan the market and develop its intricacies into a value-adding model. Just as artists must be able to account for environmental factors such as lighting variations, depth perception and color nuances, marketers must be able to discern variations in the market, account for the customer's perception of their product and understand the nuances in the needs of their customers. In this study, B-to-B marketing will be treated as an art form whose mastery requires a mixture of both technical skills and other non-technical characteristics. Just as in art, it takes more than just technical knowledge to become an exceptional marketer. A simple listing of tasks would not be able to depict an exemplary performer. In order to fully grasp the essence of a super performer, one would need a competency model listing not only technical skills but also knowledge, traits, abilities, attitudes and soft skills common to exceptional B-to-B market managers. A review of the available, non-proprietary literature, suggests that such competency inventories for B-to-B market managers are not readily available. This study will generate a competency model for B-to-B market managers.

Primary objectives of the studycontributions to B-to-B Market Management (see methodological contributions) :

● To develop a comprehensive competency model for business market managers that can be used across the various industrial classifications

● To identify and rate the competencies that will characterize a stellar B-to-B market manager over the next five years.

● To analyze the level of consensus within (1) practitioners (2) educators regarding the competencies that define an outstanding business-to-business market manager.

● To identify possible gaps that may exist between the expert practitioners and expert educators on the perceived competencies that define a stellar B-to-B market manager.

Operational Definitions

B-to-B market management: The process of understanding, creating, delivering and profitably harvesting value from targeted business markets and customers (Ralph Oliva).

Business markets: "firms, institutions, or governments that acquire goods and services either for their own use, to incorporate into the products or services that they produce, or for resale along with other products or services to other firms, institutions, or governments". (Anderson and Narus, 1999, p.4).

250

Competency model: "decision tool that describes the key capabilities for performing a specific job" (McLagan, 1996, p. 63), the results of a competency study (Spencer and Spencer, 1993). In the confines of this study, we will be looking at KSAs - knowledge, skills, and attitude competencies (McLagan, 1997)

Delphi: " a group process which utilizes written responses as opposed to bringing individuals together" (Delbecq et al, 1975, p. 83).

Super performer: exemplary, best-in-class worker.

Home | What? | Why? | Who? | How? | Contacts | ISBM | Penn State

University

Copyright 2001 - Last modified oct 14, 01 by Allen C. Stines

251

Why?

The few efforts that have been undertaken to develop a skills inventory for marketers focused on consumer marketing and were conducted using a job analysis approach to develop marketing curriculum. Since job analysis focuses on specific tasks, the results are only valid as long as the tasks do not change. In this era of technological marvels, change and innovation are continuously altering the way we do our jobs. Job duties change as new technologies and processes are developed. By focusing on the competencies of the worker (the individual as opposed to the job), firms are able to develop their strategies and structure themselves so that they are able to morph at the pace of innovation. Theoretically, since competency-based systems focus on each worker's abilities and skills, they offer a modular approach to the fulfillment of a holistic endeavor: the realization of organizational goals. Because of their modularity, these systems are more tolerant to change and innovation. Traditional competency models have been built on the critical incident technique, which identified vital competencies based on past experiences of experts. This study attempts to develop a competency model based on a heuristic, future-oriented approach.

Basic Characteristics of the study

● Focus on individuals (not jobs) ● Compact set of professional competencies ● Can be used across various industrial classifications ● Future-oriented approach ● Knowledge, skills, abilities and attitudes

A few of the potential uses of competency models

● Gap assessment ● Succession planning ● Training/ Curriculum design ● Recruitment & selection ● Strategic planning ● Career planning ● Team construction (Portable competencies) ● Competency-based compensation ???

Home | What? | Why? | Who? | How? | Contacts | ISBM | Penn State

University

Copyright 2001 - Last modified oct 14, 01 by Allen C. Stines

252

Who?

Many experts and specialists from a multitude of areas are involved in this study. This multidisciplinary research effort involves practitioners and educators/researchers in various B-to-B marketing specialties, various workforce development specialties, methods (qualitative & quantitative) and survey design.

Expert panelists

The study involves three main groups of experts:

● Practitioners. This group includes expert professionals from a variety of specialties related to the B-to-B market management function.

● Educators/Researchers. This group includes leading researchers/professors from all over the world who specialize in a variety of specialties related to the B2B market management function

● Stakeholders. This group is composed of both practitioners and educators/researchers whose functional areas are affected by the B-to-B market management function (ie. purchasers, VPs, CEOs, etc...)

The main B-to-B market management specialties that are represented:

● Brand Management ● Customer Relationship Management ● Distribution Channel Management ● E-business ● Market Research/Data Collection & Analysis ● Marketing Communications ● New product Development ● Pricing ● Sales Management ● Segmentation/Targeting/Positioning ● Strategic Market Management ● other specialties related to B-to-B market management

The sampling technique:

For information on the sampling technique that is used, please contact researcher. Many of the expert practitioners are from ISBM member firms.

Researchers

The primary researcher (Allen C. Stines) is currently finishing his PhD in Workforce Development at Penn State. He works as a member of the Professional Development Team housed in the Professional Personnel Development Center (at Penn State). The team provides consulting services (training, organizational

253

change etc...) to an area covering the middle third of Pennsylvania. Over the past five years, he has worked on diverse projects in various capacities: managerial, academic, consulting etc... He served as the Assistant Director of the Pennsylvania Governor's school for Information Technology and taught as an Adjunct Lecturer in the College of Engineering and Applied Sciences at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. His academic training covers various areas. He has completed undergraduate programs in Business Management, Applied Mathematics & Statistics and graduate programs in Technological Systems Management and educational computing.

Research committee

The study is overseen by a committee of 4 outstanding academicians whose role is to monitor the research methods and ascertain that academic rigor is maintain.

Ralph A. Oliva, PhD."B-to-B Market Management" Subject Matter Expert/Special Advisor. Dr. Oliva is the executive Director of the Institute for the Study of Business Markets (ISBM) and a professor of Marketing at Penn State. Before joining the ISBM, he served as Vice President of Worldwide Market Communications and Design at Texas Instruments where he was responsible for the global management of the Texas Instruments brand, oversight of all TI market communications, and leadership in design, message and communications strategy, and the creation of the TI web practice.

Paul Krueger, PhD., EdD.Committee Chair"Methods & Survey Research" Subject Matter Expert/Advisor. Dr. Krueger is the Research Committee Chair. He currently heads the Institute for Research in Training and Development at Penn State. He has over 18 years of diversified experience in the practice, teaching and research of human resources management, training and organizational development. He has managerial experience in manufacturing, insurance and business services industries, including two multi-national corporations: Johnson & Johnson and Bio-Rad Laboratories. He teaches classes on research methods, survey research, data analysis and various other topics.

William Rothwell, PhD."Competency Modeling" Subject Matter Expert/Special Advisor. Dr. Rothwell is one of the foremost experts in Training and Development (T&D) and one of the most published academicians in the space. He consults worldwide and teaches classes on various areas T&D. He has completed various competency models for organizations such as the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) and has written various books and articles on Competency Models.

Judith Kolb, PhD."Small Group Facilitation/Communication" Subject Matter Expert. Dr. Kolb expertise covers group facilitation and communication issues. She has published on topics related to Training & Development (T&D) and communication. She teaches various classes on T&D and group dynamics. Dr. Kolb's business background includes experience as a corporate trainer and management consultant. She has worked with several Fortune 500 companies, as well as with a host of small organizations.

254

Organizational resources

ISBM. This study is being conducted through the Institute for the Study of Business Markets (ISBM) at Penn State. The Executive Director of the ISBM plays a critical role in various aspects of this study.

IRTD. The Director of the Institute for Research in Training and Development (IRTD) at Penn State serves as the Chair of the Research committee and is consulted on all matters related to research and survey methods.

Home | What? | Why? | Who? | How? | Contacts | ISBM | Penn State

University

Copyright 2001 - Last modified oct 14, 01 by Allen C. Stines

255

How?

A naturalistic inquiry methodology coupled with a pragmatic inductive analysis approach is used throughout the study. Such an approach allows for a tremendous amount of flexibility and allows for slight adjustments of the study design based on the data: the researcher can look into new directions that were not anticipated in the initial design of the study. The various steps of the study design are tuned based on the findings from the preceding step. The methodology used in this study is structured around pragmatism therefore it is centered primarily around real-world practical knowledge and applications. The focus is on the outcome instead of the origin, on the practical applications and results of an idea or theory as opposed to the idea or theory itself.

Delphi Method

The Delphi allows for the refinement of group judgments by way of an iterative questionnaire. A three-iteration modified Delphic approach is used in this study. The first Delphic iteration is very qualitative in nature whereas the last two are quantitatively based. In the first questionnaire, the expert participants are asked to identify the competencies they perceive will define an exceptional B-to-B market manager based on their expertise and experiences. The data collected from the three groups of expert participants (educators, practitioners and stakeholders) is used to draft the second survey. In the latter, each group of experts is asked to rate the competencies that were identified. In the third iteration, the expert panelists are provided with their group's collective ratings and are asked to provide their final rating.

Data Collection Process

The main steps in the data collection process are depicted in a figure that is available in two formats:

HTML (will display in current browser window)

PDF (Best for printing purposes - must have Acrobat Reader))

Research model

The main phases of the research are depicted in a figure (study phases).

Home | What? | Why? | Who? | How? | Contacts | ISBM | Penn State

University

Copyright 2001 - Last modified oct 14, 01 by Allen C. Stines

256

What?

Primary objectives of the studymethodological contributions ( also see contributions to B-2-B Market Management):

● To develop a systematic Delphi-hybrid methodology based on empirical research

● To attempt to use quantitative measures to gauge the internal consistency of the expert submissions (qualitative data) within and between expert groups

● To evaluate the use Delphi in building future-oriented competency models

Home | What? | Why? | Who? | How? | Contacts | ISBM | Penn State

University

Copyright 2001 - Last modified oct 14, 01 by Allen C. Stines

257

Contact info

For more information about the study, feel free to contact:

Allen C. StinesCompetencies Study Project Manager

e-mail: allen1@psu.edu

Tel:

(814) 777-2587Feel free to contact me 7days/week any time between:11 A.M. - 10 P.M. Eastern Standard Time10 A.M. - 9 P.M. Central Time9 A.M.- 8 P.M. Mountain Time8 A.M. - 7 P.M. Pacific Time

Fax: (603) 720-0701

Mail:

Professional Development TeamCenter for Professional Personnel DevelopmentPenn State University409 Keller BuildingUniversity Park, PA 16802

Ralph Oliva, PhD.ISBM Executive DirectorProfessor of Marketing

e-mail: rao8@psu.edu

Tel: (814) 863-2782

Fax: (814) 863-0413

Mail:

Institute for the Study of Business Markets ISBMPenn State University402 Business Administration BuildingUniversity Park, PA 16802

Home | What? | Why? | Who? | How? | Contacts | ISBM | Penn State

University

Copyright 2001 - Last modified oct 14, 01 by Allen C. Stines

258

How?

Data Collection Process

ISBM B2B marketing study using Modified Delphi(w/ methodological triangulation and stratified sampling)

Modified Delphi process (w/ methodological triangulation and stratified sampling) using anaturalistic inquiry methodology coupled with pragmatic analysis approach. Copyright 2001

259

How?

Main steps of study(click to see data collection process)

Home | What? | Why? | Who? | How? | Contacts | ISBM | Penn State

University

Copyright 2001 - Last modified oct 14, 01 by Allen C. Stines

260

Appendix D

Delphic instruments

261

Various survey instruments were used to collect data in both the pre-Delphic and

Delphic stages. Appendix D lists the 4 instruments that were used during the three

iterations of the Delphi. The first instrument is based on the prelusive competency

model; it was used to collect data from all the panelists during the first iteration. The

second instrument depicts the preliminary functional model; it was completed by both

expert groups in the second iteration. The third and forth instruments were used in the

third iteration to collect data on the competencies for which consensus had not been

reached in the previous iteration. The third survey instrument was used with the expert

practitioners and the fourth instrument was used with the expert educators. More

information on these instruments and the Delphic iterations is provided in chapters 3

and 4.

262

ISBM Business-to-Business Market Management Competencies Study

Directions- Your assistance is needed to identify the competencies that will be indicative of a stellar business-to-business market manager five years from now. Envision a star performer, the best of the best, an exceptionally talented and outstandingly competent B-to-B market manager and the skills, abilities, attitudes or knowledge such an individual would exhibit. You may base your comments on trends; draw from your professional experience or your current practice.

Rather than ask you to react to a blank sheet, we are providing you with a basic and preliminary set of competencies to get your thinking started (Please note: the competency set provided is deliberately NOT comprehensive). We need your help and expertise to develop an inclusive yet concise set of competencies.

First, browse through the entire list of skills in order to gain a general sense of the material. Second, don’t forget to focus on the future. Then, while considering each competency set, type your comments in the suggestion box:

1. Indicate if any of the competencies are improperly stated or inadequately grouped: make suggestions. Indicate if certain competencies should be collapsed into one.

2. Suggest any other skills, abilities, attitudes or knowledge you feel should be added.

3. Indicate if any competencies should be eliminated (with a very brief explanation- a sentence or two will suffice). Don’t forget, we are trying to come up with a list that is inclusive but as streamlined as possible.

Suggestions- (a) On most machines, the document is best viewed in “web layout”. On the toolbar, select “view” then select “web layout”. (b) If you begin entering your comments and need to stop, don’t forget to save the document. (c) If you have any questions, suggestions or concerns, feel free to contact: Allen Stines (Researcher) at allen1@psu.edu or (814) 777-2587 Dr. Ralph Oliva (Executive Director, ISBM) at rao8@psu.edu or (814) 863-2782.

Some operational definitions: B-to-B market management: The process of understanding, creating, delivering and profitably harvesting value from targeted business markets and customers. Value: The worth in monetary terms of the economic, technical, service, and social benefits a customer firm receives in exchange for the price it pays for a market offering Technology: technical processes, methods or models.

263

Demographics Contact information: Please enter your contact information (the records in our database may not be current).

Name

Tel #

Title:

Company:

You are a: (select one) Please select your primary occupation (mark with an X). If currently not employed, please identify your most recent occupation.

Professional (not consultant)

University faculty/Researcher

Consultant

Other: (please specify)

264

B-to-B Market Management Competencies Study Iteration # 1 - Page 1

i. Understanding Value

A. Marketing research In 2007, an exceptional B-to-B market manager should be able to: Formulate market research objectives Select suppliers of market research services Develop market research plans Manage the marketing research process Evaluate the potential for value creation in a market

Your suggestions or additions to the “market research” competency cluster: (type comments in box)

B. Data collection & analysis In 2007, an exceptional B-to-B market manager should be able to: Select appropriate sources of data Choose appropriate data analysis tools to examine data Estimate the inherent limitations of data analysis Manage intelligence gathering efforts Translate data into better business decisions

Your suggestions or additions to the “Data collection & analysis” competency cluster:

C. Harnessing value In 2007, an exceptional B-to-B market manager should be able to:

Identify sources of value inside a firm Identify sources of value outside a firm Effectively use alliances and partnerships to create value Compute the value of a customer to a firm Assess the potential value of proprietary technologies Assess the potential value of technology licensing agreements

Your suggestions or additions to the “Harnessing value” competency cluster:

265

B-to-B Market Management Competencies Study Iteration # 1 - Page 2

D. Value & Pricing In 2007, an exceptional B-to-B market manager should be able to:

Formulate prices for offerings based on customer value Develop strategies for price discovery Manage a value-chain Align pricing strategies with government regulations

Your suggestions or additions to the “Value & Pricing” competency cluster:

ii. Strategy

E. Market segmentation In 2007, an exceptional B-to-B market manager should be able to: Recommend the appropriate techniques for market segmentation Analyze market information to categorize customers with similar needs Develop value propositions for different segments

Your suggestions or additions to the “Market segmentation” competency cluster:

F. Targeting In 2007, an exceptional B-to-B market manager should be able to: Select the appropriate tools to identify the market segments to be addressed Select target markets to be addressed

Your suggestions or additions to the “Targeting” competency cluster:

266

B-to-B Market Management Competencies Study Iteration # 1 - Page 3

G. Positioning In 2007, an exceptional B-to-B market manager should be able to: Develop procedures that will enable a firm to differentiate its offerings from its competitors'

Your suggestions or additions to the “Positioning” competency cluster:

H. Strategic marketing management planning In 2007, an exceptional B-to-B market manager should be able to: Formulate risk/reward analyses Develop marketing strategy plans Evaluate how competitors’ marketing efforts are evolving Consider the implications of patent/copyrights/trademark law on marketing decisions Establish processes to measure the return-on-investment (ROI) of marketing efforts

Your suggestions or additions to the “Strategic marketing management planning” competency cluster:

I. New product development

In 2007, an exceptional B-to-B market manager should be able to: Integrate the target market’s needs into the product development process Develop launch strategies for new products Estimate the impact of new products on a firm’s bottom line Manage a portfolio process for new product offerings mix

Your suggestions or additions to the “New product development” competency cluster:

267

B-to-B Market Management Competencies Study Iteration # 1 - Page 4

iii. Communicating and Delivering Value

J. Brand & identity management In 2007, an exceptional B-to-B market manager should be able to: Implement the procedures for building brands that will create positive economic effects Align product brand strategies with overall corporate brand strategy Identify key issues surrounding identity management Manage an identity portfolio for optimal business impact

Your suggestions or additions to the “Brand & identity management” competency cluster:

K. Marketing communications In 2007, an exceptional B-to-B market manager should be able to: Assess communications needs Design an integrated process for communicating offerings to targeted segments Measure the effectiveness of market communication efforts

Your suggestions or additions to the “Market communications” competency cluster:

L. Sales management In 2007, an exceptional B-to-B market manager should be able to: Implement a process for executing the marketing plan through the sales force Distinguish the respective roles of marketing and sales in order to coordinate the two functions Monitor the effectiveness of the sales force

Your suggestions or additions to the “Sales management” competency cluster:

268

B-to-B Market Management Competencies Study Iteration # 1 - Page 5

M. Distribution channel management In 2007, an exceptional B-to-B market manager should be able to: Determine optimal distribution channel configurations Develop channel management strategies Understand situations that lead to channel conflicts

Your suggestions or additions to the “Distribution channel management” competency cluster:

N. Customer relationship management In 2007, an exceptional B-to-B market manager should be able to: Demonstrate a continuous desire to satisfying the needs of the customer Establish a process to capture, analyze and handle customer complaints Develop strategies to enhance relationships with customers Establish processes to measure customer satisfaction Establish processes to measure customer loyalty

Your suggestions or additions to the “Customer relationship management” competency cluster:

iv. Personal Competencies

O. Communication skills In 2007, an exceptional B-to-B market manager should be able to: Demonstrate outstanding presentation skills Exhibit exceptional facilitation skills Demonstrate superb coaching skills Possess active listening skills Demonstrate awareness of the implications of cultural differences on marketing endeavors Negotiate solutions

Your suggestions or additions to the “Communication skills” competency cluster:

269

B-to-B Market Management Competencies Study Iteration # 1 - Page 6

P. Creativity and foresight In 2007, an exceptional B-to-B market manager should be able to: Demonstrate creative problem solving skills Adapt to a changing environment. Serve as a catalyst for change

Your suggestions or additions to the “Creativity and foresight” competency cluster:

Q. Technical savvy

In 2007, an exceptional B-to-B market manager should be able to: Recommend technological solutions that will streamline and optimize marketing processes Demonstrate product knowledge Demonstrate industry knowledge

Your suggestions or additions to the “Technical savvy” competency cluster:

R. Personal attributes In 2007, an exceptional B-to-B market manager should be able to: Demonstrate critical thinking skills. Manage resources effectively Demonstrate project management skills Demonstrate ethical behavior

Your suggestions or additions to the “Personal attributes” competency cluster:

270

B-to-B Market Management Competencies Study Iteration # 1 - Page 7

v. Additional comments

S. Additional competencies / General comments

Please use the box below for additional comments

Thank you for your participation

After entering all your comments: 1. Save this document. 2. Attach the file to an e-mail message and send it to allen1@psu.edu -OR- fax it back at

(603) 720-0701. 3. Your responses are confidential. If you have any difficulties or questions about the study,

please contact Allen at allen1@psu.edu or call (814) 777-2587.

*************************************************** END OF DOCUMENT ***************************************************

271

ISBM Business-to-Business Market Management Competencies Study

Iteration 2 Questionnaire

Thank you for participating in our Delphi study of B-to-B market management competencies, and for responding to our last survey. The hundreds of comments you and fellow expert panelists returned have been compiled, analyzed and clustered to draft the second iteration survey.

Our goal is to compile a set of competencies that stellar business-to-business market managers will possess five years from now. However, some of the competencies will be more important than others. We need your help and expertise to develop an inclusive yet concise set of competencies. That is the issue we will tackle in this questionnaire: rating competencies by their essentiality to superior market management performance.

Directions- First, browse through the entire list of competencies in order to gain a general sense of the material. Second, envision a star performer, the best of the best, an exceptionally talented and outstandingly competent B-to-B market manager and the skills, abilities, attitudes or knowledge such an individual would exhibit. Depending on the size of the firm, these competencies may be spread over multiple functions (e.g. marketing manager, marketing research manager, marketing communications manager). While considering each competency:

1. Rate each item by placing an “X” in the appropriate space using the assigned 6-point scale (where 1= least important and 6= most important). Furthermore, ratings 1, 2 or 3 identify the competency as being “supplemental” (nice to have but not critical). Ratings 4, 5 or 6 classify the competency as “core”.

2. If you choose not to rate a competency, please mark the box labeled “NR” (No Rating) and provide a very brief explanation in the comments box.

3. After completing the survey, please return it as an e-mail attachment or by fax.

Suggestion- (a) If you choose to fill out the instrument electronically and need to stop at any point, don’t forget to save it. (b) If you travel a lot, you may opt to print out the instrument, fill it out using a dark pen (whenever you have the time –on a plane, train…) and fax it back. (c) If you have any questions, suggestions or concerns, feel free to contact: Allen Stines (Researcher) at allen1@psu.edu or (814) 777-2587 Dr. Ralph Oliva (Executive Director, ISBM) at rao8@psu.edu or (814) 863-2782.

272

ISBM B-to-B Market Management Competency Study - Iteration #2 - Page 1 of 9

Directions: Rate each item by placing an “X” in the appropriate space using the assigned 6-point scale 1= least important and 6= most important Ratings 1, 2 or 3 identify the competency as being “supplemental” (nice to have but not critical). Ratings 4, 5 or 6 classify the competency as “core”. NR= No Rating (please provide a brief explanation).

Total # years of experience in your field: __

Comments (please type comments in box):

Supp. Core

B. Data Management (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6 NR

I. Understanding Value

In 2007, an exceptional B-to-B market manager should be able to:

Supp. Core

A. Marketing Research (MR) (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6 NR

1 Select marketing objectives to be supported by Marketing Research

2 Formulate information requirements necessary to support marketing decisions

3 Understand the fundamentals of MR (know enough to evaluate expert advice)

4 Turn marketing research results into action plans

5 Develop a process to measure the Return On Investment of MR

1 Set up a monitoring process that periodically provides feedback on vital marketing metrics

2 Understand the characteristics (i.e. limitations, strengths) of: -Quantitative research methods

-Qualitative research methods

3 Recognize instances when: -Data mining can be advantageously used

-Qualitative approaches can provide more insight than quantitative methods (e.g. probing customers’ unmet needs)

4 Effectively use data from various sources to improve marketing decisions

5 Manage a competitive intelligence program

6 Collaborate with other functional leaders to ensure the inclusion of marketing data in the business decision-making process

273

ISBM B-to-B Market Management Competency Study - Iteration #2 - Page 2 of 9

Comments:

Supp. Core

C. Harnessing Value (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6 NR

1 Recognize what value is for: - the customer

- customer’s customer

2 Estimate the sustainability of sources of value

3 Identify customers with high lifetime value

4 Understand the firms’ business model: how various operations combine efforts to create value for the customer

5 Use the firms’ core competencies to maximize value

6 Effectively use alliances to create value

7 Link value (market/customer) to financial performance (shareholder value)

8 Assess the potential value of proprietary technologies

9 Assess the value of intangibles (e.g. Relationships, brands, market intelligence)

Comments:

Supp. Core

D. Value and Pricing (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6 NR

1 Calculate the total costs of offerings (e.g. manufacturing costs, service costs)

2 Understand various pricing approaches

3 Shift from traditional to value-based pricing models

4 Calculate the “value-in-use”1 of offerings

5 Evaluate tradeoff opportunities for market share and price premiums

6 Develop strategies for pricing bundled offerings

7 Estimate the long-term effects of short-term pricing decisions

8 Implement pricing strategies in dynamic environments (uncertain demand and fluctuating capacity)

9 Manage pricing over generations of an offering (e.g. penetration pricing, upgrade pricing)

10 Develop a plan for global pricing

11 Align pricing strategies with government regulations

12 Monitor the effectiveness of pricing strategies over time

1 Value of an offering which is used in a specific customer application

274

ISBM B-to-B Market Management Competency Study - Iteration #2 - Page 3 of 9

Comments:

II. Strategy In 2007, an exceptional B-to-B market manager should be able to: Supp. Core

E. Market planning (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6 NR

1 Analyze “value webs”2

Analyze value chains

-identify sources for developing sustainable competitive advantage

-identify sources of negative value (i.e. activities or customers that are draining value)

2 Recognize opportunities to build profitable and sustainable cooperative networks

3 Assess potential factors that may help or hinder marketing objectives

4 Design dynamic marketing strategies that can be easily adapted to changing market conditions

5 Monitor competitors marketing efforts (i.e. segmentation, targeting, offerings, pricing) in order to adjust the firm’s marketing strategy

6 Estimate staffing levels (e.g. skill sets) required to carry out marketing plan effectively

7 Formulate marketing plan with options (analyses and recommendations)

8 Articulate marketing plans to all functional elements of the organization

9 Establish processes to measure the ROI of marketing efforts

-in terms of their impact on cash flow

-in terms of their impact on reducing risk for companies

Comments (please type comments in box):

2 Product eco-systems or value networks

275

ISBM B-to-B Market Management Competency Study - Iteration #2 - Page 4 of 9

Supp. Core

F. Market segmentation (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6 NR

1 Identify innovative market segmentation criteria to aggregate customers with similar needs and behaviors

2 Develop innovative segmentation schemes that can be adapted to changing market conditions

3 Identify the fundamental drivers of customer segments

4 Establish performance metrics for each segment

5 Develop cost/profit models to serve each market segment

6 Link segmentation strategies to individual customer offerings

7 Adapt segmentation scheme over product lifecycle

8 Implement segmentation strategies through the sales organization

Comments:

Supp. Core

G. Targeting (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6 NR

1 Define selection criteria for identifying profitable segments

2 Allocate resources based on target segment potential

3 Manage segment specific marketing programs in order to customize marketing and sales efforts

4 Match segment-specific targeting strategy to overall corporate strategy

5 Market the targeted segments to internal stakeholders (i.e. sales, communication, R & D, strategic planning…)

6 Implement targeting strategies through internal stakeholders (ie. sales, R&D, manufacturing)

7 Devise a process to track changes in targeted segments in order to realign targeting strategy

8 Develop an understanding for target segments that goes beyond quantitative analyzes (e.g. live in your market as opposed to flying over it)

Comments:

276

ISBM B-to-B Market Management Competency Study - Iteration #2 - Page 5 of 9

Supp. Core

H. Positioning (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6 NR

1 Compare the firms’ competitive advantage (functional and perceptual) to its competitors’

2 Assess current brand positions in targeted segments

3 Develop a strategy which will enable a firm to differentiate: -itself from its competitors

-its offerings from its competitors

4 Evaluate the impact of differentiation (e.g. on the firm’s operations, on profitability)

5 Develop an integrated corporate and brand positioning strategy that is communicated to each market segment

-Clearly communicate a unique value proposition for each target segment

- Test positioning in the market to assess its value to the customers

6 Collaborate with other market players in the positioning of offerings (e.g. via co-op advertising, co-branding, service contracts)

7 Distinguish products/services that can be outsourced while still preserving positioning

8 Understand the principles associated with brand extensions

9 Manage positioning in global markets

10 Tie brand equity to marketing ROI metrics

Comments:

Supp. Core

I. Sales integration (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6 NR

1 Distinguish the role of marketing in different sales scenarios (e.g. Solutions selling, strategic selling, relationship selling)

2 Effectively communicate the value proposition to the sales force

3 Identify the respective roles of marketing and sales in the firm in order to better integrate the two functions

4 Collaborate with sales management to: Align the marketing and the sales plans

Integrate segmentation and targeting into the sales process

Periodically evaluate the effectiveness of marketing efforts

Assist in the design of compensation schemes for sales people to motivate them to achieve both the firms’ sales and marketing objectives

Leverage intelligence from sales

develop strategies to enhance relationships with customers

establish programs for customer retention

5 Monitor the effectiveness of the sales force (e.g. by brand, by market segment)

Comments:

277

ISBM B-to-B Market Management Competency Study - Iteration #2 - Page 6 of 9

III. Creating Value In 2007, an exceptional B-to-B market manager should be able to: Supp. Core

J. Managing market offerings (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6 NR

1 Recognize the role of service in differentiating offerings

2 Build an offerings portfolio around customer needs and behaviors rather than technologies

3 Develop bundling (de-bundling and re-bundling) strategies

4 Establish a continuous offering improvement process

5 Understand the customer’s business processes in order to better integrate the firm’s offerings into the customer’s processes

6 Discontinue ineffective offerings efficiently

7 Distinguish different value criteria of international customers

8 Rapidly turn customized solutions into offerings

Comments (please type comments in box):

Supp. Core

K. New Offering Development (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6 NR

1 Involve marketing in the development process of new offerings from the fuzzy front end (project conception) to the launch

2 Forecast:

- market demand

- competitive reaction to a new offering

3 Involve all stakeholders (within the firm, the target segments and the channel) in the development of new offerings

4 Create a process to review new offerings with decision gates at critical steps

5 Assess the risk of failure of new offerings by identifying critical issues that could impact the success of new offering launches

6 Estimate the impact of new offerings on current operations (e.g. selling, distribution channels, and customer service)

7 Align new offerings with the brand positioning strategy

8 Develop value propositions for new offerings based on benefits rather than offering features

9 Balance resources required for product development (time to market) and market development (time to market penetration).

10 Develop solutions which integrate the firm’s offerings with those of partners and competitors (to maximize the offering’s value)

11 Continuously streamline the new offering development process

Comments:

278

ISBM B-to-B Market Management Competency Study - Iteration #2 - Page 7 of 9

Supp. Core

L. Channel Management (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6 NR

1 Manage channel relationships

2 Develop monitoring programs to track the effectiveness of channels

-Evaluate alternative channels

3 Formulate strategies to address channel conflict

4 Develop processes to assist channels in adding value to the firm’s product/service line

5 Develop processes to facilitate communications between the channel members

6 Optimize distribution by combining online (e.g. e-channels) and offline distribution channels

7 Develop a process for automating response feedback on offers

Comments:

IV. Delivering Value In 2007, an exceptional B-to-B market manager should be able to: Supp. Core

M. Marketing Communications (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6 NR

1 Manage integrated marketing communications that are aligned with offering positioning

2 Develop a theme for the brand that can be built over time, evolving with market conditions

3 Protect brand equity

4 Solicit sales force input into marketing communications programs

5 Design segment-specific communications taking into account cultural and regional differences

6 Recommend programs for reinforcing brand values with all stakeholders (internal/external)

-Select communications media to best deliver messages to targeted audience

-Manage design issues (ie. trademark, logo…) associated with branding

8 Monitor the effectiveness of marketing communications efforts in order to demonstrate a ROI

Comments (please type comments in box):

279

ISBM B-to-B Market Management Competency Study - Iteration #2 - Page 8 of 9

Supp. Core

N. Customer Relationship Management (CRM) (1= least imp.; 6= most imp.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 NR

1 Establish processes to manage company wide relationships

2 Integrate all points of customer interaction (ie. account acquisition, account retention and shedding)

3 Embed STP (Segmentation-Targeting-Positioning) into all aspects of CRM

4 Establish processes to:

-manage (capture, analyze and handle) customer feedback (ie. satisfaction, complaints, suggestions)

-share the results of corrective actions with customers

5 Integrate CRM and supply chain management

6 Establish processes to measure:

Customer satisfaction by segment

Customer loyalty by segment

Comments:

V. Personal competencies In 2007, an exceptional B-to-B market manager should be able to: Supp. Core

O. Creativity and foresight (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6 NR

1 Integrate ideas into hybrid solutions

2 Anticipate change (i.e. its effects on business)

3 Adapt to a changing business environment

4 Experiment with innovative ideas using calculated risk

5 Evaluate solutions that can streamline and optimize marketing processes

6 Creatively identify market opportunities

Comments (please type comments in box):

280

ISBM B-to-B Market Management Competency Study - Iteration #2 - Page 9 of 9

Supp. Core

P. Marketing Leadership (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6 NR

1 Build strong cross functional relationships

2 Align marketing team around a vision/strategy

3 Manage multiple marketing projects simultaneously

4 Demonstrate empathy for a wide cross-section of people (including customers and colleagues)

5 Exhibit exceptional ability to settle conflicts

6 Efficiently delegate work

7 Effectively manage agency relationships (e.g. marketing research, Marketing communications)

8 Behave ethically

Comments:

Supp. Core

Q. Business Acumen (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6 NR

1 Justify marketing decisions in financial terms

2 Understand global market dynamics

3 Ensure that all functions within the organization understand the strategic role of marketing

4 Address not only customer but also investor communications

5 Recognize how technology impacts B-to-B marketing processes (i.e. markets, sales, channels, CRM)

Comments:

Thank you for your participation

After rating the items: 1. Save this document to a known location on your disk (if filled out electronically). 2. Attach the file to an e-mail message and send it to allen1@psu.edu -OR- fax it back at

(603) 720-0701. 3. Your responses are confidential. If you have any questions about the study, please contact

Allen at allen1@psu.edu or call (814) 777-2587.

281

ISBM Business-to-Business Market Management Competencies Study

Iteration 3 Questionnaire (expert practitioners)

Welcome to the last iteration of the study and thank you for participating in the first two rounds. Our goal is to identify the competencies that stellar business-to-business market managers should possess over the next five years. Since some of the competencies will be more critical than others, we need your help and expertise to refine the competencies into an inclusive yet concise set.

In this round, we will be refining the list of competencies that was rated in the second iteration. The results from the second iteration were used to design two separate surveys: one for the expert practitioners and the other for the academics. The analysis of the data showed that consensus was reached for about a third of the competencies rated during the second iteration. This round will only cover the competencies for which consensus was not clearly reached (the most controversial ones). We are asking you to rate these competencies once more, this time taking into consideration the ratings of the other expert practitioners.

Next to each competency, in the ratings area, you will find the following information:

- Shaded boxes indicating the “consensus range”

- Underlined box(es) indicating the central tendency within the “consensus range”

Here’s an example:

A. Marketing Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Select marketing objectives to be supported by Marketing Research

in this case, the majority of the expert practitioners agree that the competency’s rating is somewhere between 4 and 6 with central tendency at 5 and 6.

Directions- Envision a star performer, the best of the best, an exceptionally talented and outstandingly competent B-to-B market manager and the skills, abilities, attitudes or knowledge such an individual would exhibit. While considering each competency:

1. Note the “consensus range” (shaded) and the central tendency (underlined) for the competency. Please note that these 2 measures are provided as a guide and you may choose to agree or disagree with them.

2. Rate each item by placing an “X” in the appropriate space using the assigned 6-point scale (where 1= least important and 6= most important). Furthermore, ratings 1, 2 or 3 identify the competency as being “supplemental” (nice to have but not critical). Ratings 4, 5 or 6 classify the competency as “core”.

3. After completing the survey, please return it as an e-mail attachment (preferable) to allen1@psu.edu or by fax at (603) 720-0701.

282

B-to-B Marketing Competencies Study – Practitioners – Iteration #3 - Page 1 of 8

Directions: Rate each item by placing an “X” in the appropriate space using the assigned 6-point scale 1= least important and 6= most important Ratings 1, 2 or 3 identify the competency as being “supplemental” (nice to have but not critical). Ratings 4, 5 or 6 classify the competency as “core”.

The following information from the second iteration is depicted:

(Shaded) = “consensus range”

(Underlined) = central tendency within the “consensus range”.

I. Understanding Value

In 2007, an exceptional B-to-B market manager should be able to:

Supp. Core

A. Marketing Research (MR) (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6

Supp. Core

B. Data Management (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Set up a monitoring process that periodically provides feedback on vital marketing metrics

2 Understand the characteristics (i.e. limitations, strengths) of:

a -Quantitative research methods

b -Qualitative research methods

3b Recognize instances when qualitative approaches can provide more insight than quantitativemethods (e.g. probing customers’ unmet needs)

5 Manage a competitive intelligence program

Supp. Core

C. Harnessing Value (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6

5 Use the firms’ core competencies to maximize value

6 Effectively use alliances to create value

7 Link value (market/customer) to financial performance (shareholder value)

8 Assess the potential value of proprietary technologies

9 Assess the value of intangibles (e.g. Relationships, brands, market intelligence)

3 Understand the fundamentals of MR (know enough to evaluate expert advice)

4 Turn marketing research results into action plans

5 Develop a process to measure the Return On Investment of MR

283

B-to-B Marketing Competencies Study – Practitioners – Iteration #3 - Page 2 of 8

Supp. Core

D. Value and Pricing (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Calculate the total costs of offerings (e.g. manufacturing costs, service costs)

3 Shift from traditional to value-based pricing models

5 Evaluate tradeoff opportunities for market share and price premiums

6 Develop strategies for pricing bundled offerings

7 Estimate the long-term effects of short-term pricing decisions

9 Manage pricing over generations of an offering (e.g. penetration pricing, upgrade pricing)

10 Develop a plan for global pricing

11 Align pricing strategies with government regulations

12 Monitor the effectiveness of pricing strategies over time

II. Strategy In 2007, an exceptional B-to-B market manager should be able to: Supp. Core

E. Market planning (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6

1a Analyze “value webs”

bAnalyze value chains

c -identify sources for developing sustainable competitive advantage

d -identify sources of negative value (i.e. activities or customers that are draining value)

2 Recognize opportunities to build profitable and sustainable cooperative networks

3 Identify customers with high lifetime value

4 Design dynamic marketing strategies that can be easily adapted to changing market conditions

5 Monitor competitors marketing efforts (i.e. segmentation, targeting, offerings, pricing) in order to adjust the firm’s marketing strategy

9a Establish processes to measure the ROI of marketing efforts

b -in terms of their impact on cash flow

c -in terms of their impact on reducing risk for companies

284

B-to-B Marketing Competencies Study – Practitioners – Iteration #3 - Page 3 of 8

Supp. Core

F. Market segmentation (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Identify innovative market segmentation criteria to aggregate customers with similar needs and behaviors

2 Develop innovative segmentation schemes that can be adapted to changing market conditions

3 Identify the fundamental drivers of customer segments

4 Establish performance metrics for each segment

6 Link segmentation strategies to individual customer offerings

Supp. Core

G. Targeting (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Define selection criteria for identifying profitable segments

2 Allocate resources based on target segment potential

4 Match segment-specific targeting strategy to overall corporate strategy

5 Market the targeted segments to internal stakeholders (i.e. sales, communication, R & D, strategic planning…)

6 Implement targeting strategies through internal stakeholders (ie. sales, R&D, manufacturing)

7 Devise a process to track changes in targeted segments in order to realign targeting strategy

8 Develop an understanding for target segments that goes beyond quantitative analyzes (e.g. live in your market as opposed to flying over it)

Supp. Core

H. Positioning (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Compare the firms’ competitive advantage (functional and perceptual) to its competitors’

4 Evaluate the impact of differentiation (e.g. on the firm’s operations, on profitability)

5a Develop an integrated corporate and brand positioning strategy that is communicated to each market segment

b -Clearly communicate a unique value proposition for each target segment

c - Test positioning in the market to assess its value to the customers

7 Distinguish products/services that can be outsourced while still preserving positioning

8 Understand the principles associated with brand extensions

10 Tie brand equity to marketing ROI metrics

285

B-to-B Marketing Competencies Study – Practitioners – Iteration #3 - Page 4 of 8

Supp. Core

I. Sales integration (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Distinguish the role of marketing in different sales scenarios (e.g. Solutions selling, strategic selling, relationship selling)

3 Identify the respective roles of marketing and sales in the firm in order to better integrate the two functions

4 Collaborate with sales management to:

a Align the marketing and the sales plans

b Integrate segmentation and targeting into the sales process

dAssist in the design of compensation schemes for sales people to motivate them to achieve both the firms’ sales and marketing objectives

e Leverage intelligence from sales

f develop strategies to enhance relationships with customers

g establish programs for customer retention

5 Monitor the effectiveness of the sales force (e.g. by brand, by market segment)

III. Creating Value In 2007, an exceptional B-to-B market manager should be able to: Supp. Core

J. Managing market offerings (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Recognize the role of service in differentiating offerings

4 Establish a continuous offering improvement process

5 Understand the customer’s business processes in order to better integrate the firm’s offerings into the customer’s processes

6 Discontinue ineffective offerings efficiently

8 Rapidly turn customized solutions into offerings

286

B-to-B Marketing Competencies Study – Practitioners – Iteration #3 - Page 5 of 8

Supp. Core

K. New Offering Development (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Involve marketing in the development process of new offerings from the fuzzy front end (project conception) to the launch

2 Forecast:

a - market demand

b - competitive reaction to a new offering

3 Involve all stakeholders (within the firm, the target segments and the channel) in the development of new offerings

4 Create a process to review new offerings with decision gates at critical steps

5 Assess the risk of failure of new offerings by identifying critical issues that could impact the success of new offering launches

6 Estimate the impact of new offerings on current operations (e.g. selling, distribution channels, and customer service)

7 Align new offerings with the brand positioning strategy

9 Balance resources required for product development (time to market) and market development (time to market penetration).

10 Develop solutions which integrate the firm’s offerings with those of partners and competitors (to maximize the offering’s value)

Supp. Core

L. Channel Management (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Manage channel relationships

2a Develop monitoring programs to track the effectiveness of channels

4 Develop processes to assist channels in adding value to the firm’s product/service line

5 Develop processes to facilitate communications between the channel members

6 Optimize distribution by combining online (e.g. e-channels) and offline distribution channels

7 Develop a process for automating response feedback on offers

287

B-to-B Marketing Competencies Study – Practitioners – Iteration #3 - Page 6 of 8

IV. Delivering Value In 2007, an exceptional B-to-B market manager should be able to: Supp. Core

M. Marketing Communications (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Manage integrated marketing communications that are aligned with offering positioning

2 Develop a theme for the brand that can be built over time, evolving with market conditions

3 Protect brand equity

5 Design segment-specific communications taking into account cultural and regional differences

6a Recommend programs for reinforcing brand values with all stakeholders (internal/external)

b -Select communications media to best deliver messages to targeted audience

c -Manage design issues (ie. trademark, logo…) associated with branding

7 Monitor the effectiveness of marketing communications efforts in order to demonstrate a ROI

Supp. Core

N. Customer Relationship Management (CRM) (1= least imp.; 6= most imp.) 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Establish processes to manage company wide relationships

2 Integrate all points of customer interaction (ie. account acquisition, account retention and shedding)

4 Establish processes to:

a-manage (capture, analyze and handle) customer feedback (ie. satisfaction, complaints, suggestions)

b -share the results of corrective actions with customers

5 Integrate CRM and supply chain management

6 Establish processes to measure:

a Customer satisfaction by segment

b Customer loyalty by segment

288

B-to-B Marketing Competencies Study – Practitioners – Iteration #3 - Page 7 of 8

V. Personal competencies In 2007, an exceptional B-to-B market manager should be able to: Supp. Core

O. Creativity and foresight (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Integrate ideas into hybrid solutions

4 Experiment with innovative ideas using calculated risk

5 Evaluate solutions that can streamline and optimize marketing processes

Supp. Core

P. Marketing Leadership (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6

2 Align marketing team around a vision/strategy

6 Efficiently delegate work

7 Effectively manage agency relationships (e.g. marketing research, Marketing communications)

Supp. Core

Q. Business Acumen (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Justify marketing decisions in financial terms

3 Ensure that all functions within the organization understand the strategic role of marketing

5 Recognize how technology impacts B-to-B marketing processes (i.e. markets, sales, channels, CRM)

289

B-to-B Marketing Competencies Study – Practitioners – Iteration #3 - Page 8 of 8

VI. Final comments (optional)

I would appreciate it very much if you could share your experience as a member of the expert panel: - In your opinion, was the 3-iteration data collection process an effective means of identifying, rating and refining the

competencies? - Is there anything you particularly liked or disliked about the study? - What could have been done to improve your overall experience?

Overall comments on the data collection approach:

Thank you for your participation After rating the items:

1. Save this document to a known location on your disk. 2. Attach the file to an e-mail message and send it to allen1@psu.edu

-OR- print the document and fax it back at (603) 720-0701.

3. Your responses are confidential. If you have any questions about the study, please contact me at allen1@psu.edu or call (917) 622-3183.

The results will be mailed as soon as the analysis is completed.

290

ISBM Business-to-Business Market Management Competencies Study

Iteration 3 Questionnaire (expert researchers/educators)

Welcome to the last iteration of the study and thank you for participating in the first two rounds. Our goal is to identify the competencies that stellar business-to-business market managers should possess over the next five years. Since some of the competencies will be more critical than others, we need your help and expertise to refine the competencies into an inclusive yet concise set.

In this round, we will be refining the list of competencies that was rated in the second iteration. The results from the second iteration were used to design two separate surveys: one for the expert practitioners and the other for the academics. The analysis of the data showed that consensus was reached for about a third of the competencies rated during the second iteration. This round will only cover the competencies for which consensus was not clearly reached (the most controversial ones). We are asking you to rate these competencies once more, this time taking into consideration the ratings of the other expert researchers/educators.

Next to each competency, in the ratings area, you will find the following information:

- Shaded boxes indicating the “consensus range”

- Underlined box(es) indicating the central tendency within the “consensus range”

Here’s an example:

A. Marketing Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 Select marketing objectives to be supported by Marketing Research

in this case, the majority of the expert researchers/educators agree that the competency’s rating is somewhere between 4 and 6 with central tendency at 5 and 6.

Directions- Envision a star performer, the best of the best, an exceptionally talented and outstandingly competent B-to-B market manager and the skills, abilities, attitudes or knowledge such an individual would exhibit. While considering each competency:

1. Note the “consensus range” (shaded) and the central tendency (underlined) for the competency. Please note that these 2 measures are provided as a guide and you may choose to agree or disagree with them.

2. Rate each item by placing an “X” in the appropriate space using the assigned 6-point scale (where 1= least important and 6= most important). Furthermore, ratings 1, 2 or 3 identify the competency as being “supplemental” (nice to have but not critical). Ratings 4, 5 or 6 classify the competency as “core”.

3. After completing the survey, please return it as an e-mail attachment (preferable) to allen1@psu.edu or by fax at (603) 720-0701.

291

ISBM B-to-B Market Management Competency Study - researchers/educators - Iteration #3 - Page 1 of 7

Directions: Rate each item by placing an “X” in the appropriate space using the assigned 6-point scale 1= least important and 6= most important Ratings 1, 2 or 3 identify the competency as being “supplemental” (nice to have but not critical). Ratings 4, 5 or 6 classify the competency as “core”.

The following information is depicted (based on data collected during the second iteration):

(Shaded) = “consensus range”

(Underlined) = central tendency within the “consensus range”.

I. Understanding Value

In 2007, an exceptional B-to-B market manager should be able to:

Supp. Core

A. Marketing Research (MR) (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6

Supp. Core

B. Data Management (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Set up a monitoring process that periodically provides feedback on vital marketing metrics

2a Understand the characteristics (i.e. limitations, strengths) of quantitative research methods

3 Recognize instances when:

a -Data mining can be advantageously used

4 Effectively use data from various sources to improve marketing decisions

5 Manage a competitive intelligence program

Supp. Core

C. Harnessing Value (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6

2 Estimate the sustainability of sources of value

5 Use the firms’ core competencies to maximize value

7 Link value (market/customer) to financial performance (shareholder value)

8 Assess the potential value of proprietary technologies

1 Select marketing objectives to be supported by Marketing Research

2 Formulate information requirements necessary to support marketing decisions

3 Understand the fundamentals of MR (know enough to evaluate expert advice)

5 Develop a process to measure the Return On Investment of MR

292

ISBM B-to-B Market Management Competency Study - researchers/educators - Iteration #3 - Page 2 of 7

Supp. Core

D. Value and Pricing (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Calculate the total costs of offerings (e.g. manufacturing costs, service costs)

2 Understand various pricing approaches

3 Shift from traditional to value-based pricing models

4 Calculate the “value-in-use” of offerings

5 Evaluate tradeoff opportunities for market share and price premiums

6 Develop strategies for pricing bundled offerings

8 Implement pricing strategies in dynamic environments (uncertain demand and fluctuating capacity)

9 Manage pricing over generations of an offering (e.g. penetration pricing, upgrade pricing)

11 Align pricing strategies with government regulations

II. Strategy In 2007, an exceptional B-to-B market manager should be able to: Supp. Core

E. Market planning (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6

1a Analyze “value webs”

bAnalyze value chains

c -identify sources for developing sustainable competitive advantage

3 Assess potential factors that may help or hinder marketing objectives

4 Design dynamic marketing strategies that can be easily adapted to changing market conditions

6 Estimate staffing levels (e.g. skill sets) required to carry out marketing plan effectively

7 Formulate marketing plan with options (analyses and recommendations)

8 Articulate marketing plans to all functional elements of the organization

9a Establish processes to measure the ROI of marketing efforts

c -in terms of their impact on reducing risk for companies

293

ISBM B-to-B Market Management Competency Study - researchers/educators - Iteration #3 - Page 3 of 7

Supp. Core

F. Market segmentation (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Identify innovative market segmentation criteria to aggregate customers with similar needs and behaviors

3 Identify the fundamental drivers of customer segments

4 Establish performance metrics for each segment

5 Develop cost/profit models to serve each market segment

7 Adapt segmentation scheme over product lifecycle

8 Implement segmentation strategies through the sales organization

Supp. Core

G. Targeting (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6

3 Manage segment specific marketing programs in order to customize marketing and sales efforts

4 Match segment-specific targeting strategy to overall corporate strategy

5 Market the targeted segments to internal stakeholders (i.e. sales, communication, R & D, strategic planning…)

6 Implement targeting strategies through internal stakeholders (ie. sales, R&D, manufacturing)

Supp. Core

H. Positioning (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6

4 Evaluate the impact of differentiation (e.g. on the firm’s operations, on profitability)

5b Clearly communicate a unique value proposition for each target segment

6 Collaborate with other market players in the positioning of offerings (e.g. via co-op advertising, co-branding, service contracts)

8 Understand the principles associated with brand extensions

7 Distinguish products/services that can be outsourced while still preserving positioning

9 Manage positioning in global markets

10 Tie brand equity to marketing ROI metrics

294

ISBM B-to-B Market Management Competency Study - researchers/educators - Iteration #3 - Page 4 of 7

Supp. Core

I. Sales integration (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Distinguish the role of marketing in different sales scenarios (e.g. Solutions selling, strategic selling, relationship selling)

2 Effectively communicate the value proposition to the sales force

4 Collaborate with sales management to:

a Align the marketing and the sales plans

b Integrate segmentation and targeting into the sales process

c Periodically evaluate the effectiveness of marketing efforts

dAssist in the design of compensation schemes for sales people to motivate them to achieve both the firms’ sales and marketing objectives

e Leverage intelligence from sales

f develop strategies to enhance relationships with customers

g establish programs for customer retention

5 Monitor the effectiveness of the sales force (e.g. by brand, by market segment)

III. Creating Value In 2007, an exceptional B-to-B market manager should be able to: Supp. Core

J. Managing market offerings (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Recognize the role of service in differentiating offerings

2 Build an offerings portfolio around customer needs and behaviors rather than technologies

3 Develop bundling (de-bundling and re-bundling) strategies

4 Establish a continuous offering improvement process

7 Distinguish different value criteria of international customers

8 Rapidly turn customized solutions into offerings

295

ISBM B-to-B Market Management Competency Study - researchers/educators - Iteration #3 - Page 5 of 7

Supp. Core

K. New Offering Development (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Involve marketing in the development process of new offerings from the fuzzy front end (project conception) to the launch

3 Involve all stakeholders (within the firm, the target segments and the channel) in the development of new offerings

4 Create a process to review new offerings with decision gates at critical steps

9 Balance resources required for product development (time to market) and market development (time to market penetration).

10 Develop solutions which integrate the firm’s offerings with those of partners and competitors (to maximize the offering’s value)

11 Continuously streamline the new offering development process

Supp. Core

L. Channel Management (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6

2aDevelop monitoring programs to track the effectiveness of channels

2b -Evaluate alternative channels

3 Formulate strategies to address channel conflict

4 Develop processes to assist channels in adding value to the firm’s product/service line

5 Develop processes to facilitate communications between the channel members

7 Develop a process for automating response feedback on offers

IV. Delivering Value In 2007, an exceptional B-to-B market manager should be able to: Supp. Core

M. Marketing Communications (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Manage integrated marketing communications that are aligned with offering positioning

2 Develop a theme for the brand that can be built over time, evolving with market conditions

4 Solicit sales force input into marketing communications programs

5 Design segment-specific communications taking into account cultural and regional differences

6a Recommend programs for reinforcing brand values with all stakeholders (internal/external)

b -Select communications media to best deliver messages to targeted audience

c -Manage design issues (ie. trademark, logo…) associated with branding

296

ISBM B-to-B Market Management Competency Study - researchers/educators - Iteration #3 - Page 6 of 7

Supp. Core

N. Customer Relationship Management (CRM) (1= least imp.; 6= most imp.) 1 2 3 4 5 6

3 Embed STP (Segmentation-Targeting-Positioning) into all aspects of CRM

4 Establish processes to:

a-manage (capture, analyze and handle) customer feedback (ie. satisfaction, complaints, suggestions)

b -share the results of corrective actions with customers

5 Integrate CRM and supply chain management

6 Establish processes to measure:

a Customer satisfaction by segment

b Customer loyalty by segment

V. Personal competencies In 2007, an exceptional B-to-B market manager should be able to: Supp. Core

O. Creativity and foresight (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6

2 Anticipate change (i.e. its effects on business)

3 Adapt to a changing business environment

5 Evaluate solutions that can streamline and optimize marketing processes

6 Creatively identify market opportunities

Supp. Core

P. Marketing Leadership (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Build strong cross functional relationships

2 Align marketing team around a vision/strategy

4 Demonstrate empathy for a wide cross-section of people (including customers and colleagues)

7 Effectively manage agency relationships (e.g. marketing research, Marketing communications)

8 Behave ethically

297

ISBM B-to-B Market Management Competency Study - researchers/educators - Iteration #3 - Page 7 of 7

Supp. Core

Q. Business Acumen (1= least important; 6= most important) 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Justify marketing decisions in financial terms

2 Understand global market dynamics

4 Address not only customer but also investor communications

5 Recognize how technology impacts B-to-B marketing processes (i.e. markets, sales, channels, CRM)

VI. Final comments (optional)

I would appreciate it very much if you could share your experience as a member of the expert panel: - In your opinion, was the 3-iteration data collection process an effective means of identifying, rating and refining

the competencies? - Is there anything you particularly liked or disliked about the study? - What could have been done to improve your overall experience?

Overall comments on the data collection approach:

Thank you for your participation After rating the items:

1. Save this document to a known location on your disk. 2. Attach the file to an e-mail message and send it to allen1@psu.edu

-OR- print the document and fax it back at (603) 720-0701.

3. Your responses are confidential. If you have any questions about the study, please contact me at allen1@psu.edu or call (917) 622-3183.

The results will be mailed as soon as the analysis is completed.

298

Appendix E

Identification of Kernel competencies

299

The tables in appendix E depict the distribution data for the 129 competencies

that remained after the removal of the controversial competencies. Competencies that

were identified as part of the kernel by one of the expert groups are highlighted in gray.

Competencies that were identified as part of the kernel by both expert groups are

identified by a “K” in the middle column. For a description of the competencies, please

refer to appendix G.

300

Expert Practitioners Expert Educators/Researchers Central tendency Dispersion Dispersion Central tendency Median Mode Q1 Q3 IQR IQR Q3 Q1 Mode Median A1 5 5 5 5.25 0.25 1 6 5 5 5A1 A2 5 5 4 5.5 1.5 0 5 5 5 5A2 A4 6 6 5 6 1 K 1 6 5 6 6A4 A5 3.5 3 3 5 2 1.5 5 3.5 4 4A5 B1 5 5 4 5.25 1.25 1.5 6 4.5 5 5B1 B2A 4 3 3 5 2 0.5 4.5 4 4 4B2A B2B 4 3 3 5 2 1.75 5 3.25 4 4B2B B3A 4 4 3.75 5 1.25 1.5 5 3.5 4 4B3A B3B 5 5 4 5 1 1 4 3 4 4B3B B5 4 4 3 5 2 1 5 4 5 4B5 B6 5.5 6 5 6 1 K 0.75 6 5.25 6 6B6 C1A 6 6 6 6 0 K 0.75 6 5.25 6 6C1A C1B 6 6 5 6 1 1 6 5 5 5C1B C2 5 5 3.75 6 2.25 1 6 5 5 5C2 C4 5 5 4.75 6 1.25 1 6 5 6 6C4 C5 5.5 6 5 6 1 K 1 6 5 6 6C5 C6 4 4 3.75 5 1.25 1 5 4 5 5C6 C7 5 5 4.75 6 1.25 1 6 5 5 5C7 C8 4 5 3 5 2 0.5 3.5 3 3 3C8 C9 4.5 5 4 5 1 1.75 5.75 4 5 5C9 D1 4 3 3 5 2 1 4 3 3 3D1 D3 5 6 4 6 2 1 6 5 6 6D3 D5 5 5 4 5.25 1.25 1 5 4 5 5D5 D6 5 5 4 5 1 1 5 4 4 5D6 D7 5 5 5 6 1 1.5 5.75 4.25 5 5D7 D8 5 4 4 6 2 1 5 4 5 5D8 D9 5 5 4.75 5 0.25 0 5 5 5 5D9 D10 5 5 4 5 1 1 5 4 4 4D10 D11 4 4 3 4 1 1.5 5 3.5 4 4D11 E1B 5 5 4 5 1 0.5 5 4.5 5 5E1B E1C 5 6 5 6 1 1 6 5 5 5E1C E1D 5 5 4 5.25 1.25 0 5 5 5 5E1D E2 4 4 4 5 1 1 5 4 5 5E2 E3 5 5 4 5 1 0.5 5.5 5 5 5E3 E4 5 5 5 6 1 1 6 5 5 5E4 E5 5 5 4.75 6 1.25 0.75 5.75 5 5 5E5 E6 5 5 4 6 2 1 5 4 4 4E6 E7 5 5 4.75 6 1.25 1 6 5 6 5E7 E8 6 6 4 6 2 1 6 5 6 6E8 E9A 5 5 3.75 5 1.25 1.5 6 4.5 5 5E9A

301

Expert Practitioners Expert Educators/Researchers Central tendency Dispersion Dispersion Central tendency Median Mode Q1 Q3 IQR IQR Q3 Q1 Mode Median E9C 4 3 3 5 2 1.5 5 3.5 5 4E9C F1 5 5 5 6 1 1 6 5 6 6F1 F2 5 5 5 6 1 1 6 5 5 5F2 F3 6 6 5 6 1 K 0.5 6 5.5 6 6F3 F4 5 6 4 6 2 1 6 5 5 5F4 F5 5 5 4 5.25 1.25 0.5 5.5 5 5 5F5 F7 5 5 4 5 1 1 5 4 5 5F7 F8 5 5 5 6 1 1 6 5 5 5F8 G1 5 5 5 6 1 1 6 5 5 5G1 G2 5 5 5 6 1 1 6 5 6 6G2 G3 5 5 5 5.25 0.25 1 6 5 5 5G3 G4 5 5 4 5.25 1.25 1 6 5 5 5G4 G5 4.5 4 4 5 1 2 5 3 5 5G5 G6 5 5 4.75 5 0.25 2 6 4 6 5G6 G7 5 5 4 5 1 0.75 5 4.25 5 5G7 G8 5 5 5 5.25 0.25 0 5 5 5 5G8 H1 5 6 5 6 1 1 6 5 5 5H1 H2 5 5 3 6 3 1.5 5.75 4.25 5 5H2 H3A 5 6 4.5 6 1.5 0.75 5.75 5 5 5H3A H3B 6 6 5 6 1 1 6 5 5 5H3B H4 5 5 4.75 6 1.25 1.5 5.5 4 5 5H4 H5A 5 5 4.75 5.25 0.5 1 5 4 5 5H5A H5B 5.5 5 5 6 1 K 0 6 6 6 6H5B H7 4 4 3 4 1 1 4 3 3 4H7 H9 5 5 3 5 2 1.5 5.5 4 5 5H9 I1 4 4 3.75 5 1.25 1.5 4.5 3 4 4I1 I2 6 6 5 6 1 K 1 6 5 6 6I2 I3 5 5 4 5.25 1.25 1.75 6 4.25 6 5.5I3 I4A 6 6 5 6 1 K 1 6 5 6 6I4A I4B 6 6 5 6 1 K 1 6 5 6 6I4B I4C 5 5 4 6 2 0.5 5.5 5 5 5I4C I4D 3 3 3 4 1 1.5 5 3.5 5 4I4D I4E 5 5 4.75 6 1.25 1 5 4 5 5I4E I4F 5 5 4 6 2 1.5 6 4.5 5 5I4F I4G 5 5 4 6 2 1 6 5 5 5I4G I5 4 5 3.75 5 1.25 0.5 4.5 4 4 4I5 J1 5 5 5 6 1 1 6 5 5 5J1 J2 6 6 5 6 1 K 1 6 5 6 6J2 J3 4 4 3.75 5.25 1.5 1.5 5 3.5 5 5J3 J4 4.5 5 3 5 2 1 5 4 4 4J4 J5 6 6 5 6 1 1 6 5 6 5J5 J6 5 5 5 6 1 1.75 5.75 4 5 5J6

302

Expert Practitioners Expert Educators/Researchers Central tendency Dispersion Dispersion Central tendency Median Mode Q1 Q3 IQR IQR Q3 Q1 Mode Median J7 5 5 4 5.25 1.25 1 5 4 5 5J7 J8 4 4 4 5.25 1.25 1 5 4 5 5J8 K1 5.5 6 5 6 1 1 6 5 6 5K1 K2A 5 5 4 6 2 1 5 4 5 5K2A K2B 5 5 4 5 1 1 5 4 4 4K2B K3 4.5 5 4 5 1 2 5 3 5 5K3 K4 5 5 4 5 1 2 5 3 3 4K4 K5 5 5 5 6 1 1 5 4 4 4.5K5 K6 4 4 4 5 1 1.75 5.75 4 4 4.5K6 K7 5 5 4.75 5 0.25 1 5 4 5 5K7 K8 5.5 6 4.75 6 1.25 K 1 6 5 6 6K8 K9 4 4 4 5 1 1 5 4 5 5K9 L1 4.5 5 3.75 5 1.25 1 6 5 5 5L1 L2A 4 4 4 5 1 1 5 4 5 5L2A L2B 5 5 4 5 1 1 5 4 5 5L2B L3 4 4 4 5 1 1 5 4 4 5L3 M1 5 5 5 6 1 1 5 4 5 5M1 M2 5 5 5 5 0 0.5 5 4.5 5 5M2 M3 5 5 5 5 0 0.75 5.75 5 5 5M3 M4 4 4 3.5 5 1.5 1.5 5 3.5 4 4M4 M5 5 5 4.75 5 0.25 2 5 3 5 4M5 M6A 4.5 5 3.75 5 1.25 1 5 4 4 4M6A M6C 4 4 3 5 2 1 4 3 4 4M6C M7 4 4 3.75 5 1.25 1.75 5 3.25 5 5M7 N3 4 4 3.75 5.25 1.5 1 6 5 5 5N3 N4A 4.5 3 3 5.25 2.25 1 5 4 5 5N4A N4B 5 5 3 5 2 2 6 4 6 5N4B N6A 5 4 4 6 2 0 5 5 5 5N6A N6B 5 6 4 6 2 1 6 5 5 5N6B O1 4 4 4 5 1 1 5 4 5 5O1 O2 6 6 5 6 1 K 1 6 5 6 6O2 O3 6 6 5 6 1 K 0 6 6 6 6O3 O4 5 5 4 5 1 1.5 5.75 4.25 5 5O4 O5 5 5 4 5 1 1 5 4 5 5O5 O6 6 6 5 6 1 1 6 5 5 5O6 P1 6 6 5 6 1 0.5 5.5 5 5 5P1 P2 5 5 5 6 1 1 6 5 5 5P2 P3 5 5 4 5 1 1.75 5.75 4 5 5P3 P4 5 4 4 5.25 1.25 1 6 5 6 5P4 P5 5 5 3.5 5 1.5 1.75 5.75 4 4 4P5 P7 4 3 3 5 2 1 5 4 4 4P7 P8 6 6 6 6 0 K 1 6 5 6 6P8

303

Expert Practitioners Expert Educators/Researchers Central tendency Dispersion Dispersion Central tendency Median Mode Q1 Q3 IQR IQR Q3 Q1 Mode Median Q1 6 6 5 6 1 K 0.5 6 5.5 6 6Q1 Q2 5 5 4 5 1 1 5 4 5 5Q2 Q3 5 5 4.75 6 1.25 1 5 4 5 5Q3 Q4 4 4 3 4 1 2.5 4.5 2 2 3Q4 Q5 5 5 4 5 1 0.5 5 4.5 5 5Q5

304

Appendix F

Identification of additional “core” competencies

305

The tables in appendix F depict the distribution data for the 114 competencies

that remained after isolating the controversial and kernel competencies.

(1) Competencies that were identified as part of the kernel only by the educators are

identified by a “Ke” in the middle column

(2) Competencies that were identified as part of the kernel only by the practitioners

are identified by a “Kp” in the middle column

Competencies that were identified as “core” by the two expert groups are highlighted in

gray. For a description of the competencies, please refer to appendix G.

306

Expert Practitioners Expert Educators/Researchers

Central tendency Dispersion Dispersion Central tendency Median Mode Q1 Q3 IQR IQR Q3 Q1 Mode Median

A1 5 5 5 5.25 0.25 1 6 5 5 5A1 A2 5 5 4 5.5 1.5 0 5 5 5 5A2 A5 3.5 3 3 5 2 1.5 5 3.5 4 4A5 B1 5 5 4 5.25 1.25 1.5 6 4.5 5 5B1 B2A 4 3 3 5 2 0.5 4.5 4 4 4B2A B2B 4 3 3 5 2 1.75 5 3.25 4 4B2B B3A 4 4 3.75 5 1.25 1.5 5 3.5 4 4B3A B3B 5 5 4 5 1 1 4 3 4 4B3B B5 4 4 3 5 2 1 5 4 5 4B5

C1B 6 6 5 6 1 Kp 1 6 5 5 5C1B C2 5 5 3.75 6 2.25 1 6 5 5 5C2 C4 5 5 4.75 6 1.25 Ke 1 6 5 6 6C4 C6 4 4 3.75 5 1.25 1 5 4 5 5C6 C7 5 5 4.75 6 1.25 1 6 5 5 5C7 C8 4 5 3 5 2 0.5 3.5 3 3 3C8 C9 4.5 5 4 5 1 1.75 5.75 4 5 5C9 D1 4 3 3 5 2 1 4 3 3 3D1 D3 5 6 4 6 2 Ke 1 6 5 6 6D3 D5 5 5 4 5.25 1.25 1 5 4 5 5D5 D6 5 5 4 5 1 1 5 4 4 5D6 D7 5 5 5 6 1 1.5 5.75 4.25 5 5D7 D8 5 4 4 6 2 1 5 4 5 5D8 D9 5 5 4.75 5 0.25 0 5 5 5 5D9 D10 5 5 4 5 1 1 5 4 4 4D10 D11 4 4 3 4 1 1.5 5 3.5 4 4D11 E1B 5 5 4 5 1 0.5 5 4.5 5 5E1B

E1C 5 6 5 6 1 1 6 5 5 5E1C E1D 5 5 4 5.25 1.25 0 5 5 5 5E1D E2 4 4 4 5 1 1 5 4 5 5E2 E3 5 5 4 5 1 0.5 5.5 5 5 5E3

E4 5 5 5 6 1 1 6 5 5 5E4 E5 5 5 4.75 6 1.25 0.75 5.75 5 5 5E5 E6 5 5 4 6 2 1 5 4 4 4E6 E7 5 5 4.75 6 1.25 1 6 5 6 5E7 E8 6 6 4 6 2 Ke 1 6 5 6 6E8 E9A 5 5 3.75 5 1.25 1.5 6 4.5 5 5E9A E9C 4 3 3 5 2 1.5 5 3.5 5 4E9C

F1 5 5 5 6 1 Ke 1 6 5 6 6F1 F2 5 5 5 6 1 1 6 5 5 5F2 F4 5 6 4 6 2 1 6 5 5 5F4 F5 5 5 4 5.25 1.25 0.5 5.5 5 5 5F5

307

Expert Practitioners Expert Educators/Researchers

Central tendency Dispersion Dispersion Central tendency Median Mode Q1 Q3 IQR IQR Q3 Q1 Mode Median F7 5 5 4 5 1 1 5 4 5 5F7

F8 5 5 5 6 1 1 6 5 5 5F8 G1 5 5 5 6 1 1 6 5 5 5G1 G2 5 5 5 6 1 Ke 1 6 5 6 6G2 G3 5 5 5 5.25 0.25 1 6 5 5 5G3 G4 5 5 4 5.25 1.25 1 6 5 5 5G4 G5 4.5 4 4 5 1 2 5 3 5 5G5 G6 5 5 4.75 5 0.25 2 6 4 6 5G6 G7 5 5 4 5 1 0.75 5 4.25 5 5G7

G8 5 5 5 5.25 0.25 0 5 5 5 5G8 H1 5 6 5 6 1 1 6 5 5 5H1 H2 5 5 3 6 3 1.5 5.75 4.25 5 5H2 H3A 5 6 4.5 6 1.5 0.75 5.75 5 5 5H3A

H3B 6 6 5 6 1 Kp 1 6 5 5 5H3B H4 5 5 4.75 6 1.25 1.5 5.5 4 5 5H4 H5A 5 5 4.75 5.25 0.5 1 5 4 5 5H5A H7 4 4 3 4 1 1 4 3 3 4H7 H9 5 5 3 5 2 1.5 5.5 4 5 5H9 I1 4 4 3.75 5 1.25 1.5 4.5 3 4 4I1 I3 5 5 4 5.25 1.25 1.75 6 4.25 6 5.5I3 I4C 5 5 4 6 2 0.5 5.5 5 5 5I4C I4D 3 3 3 4 1 1.5 5 3.5 5 4I4D I4E 5 5 4.75 6 1.25 1 5 4 5 5I4E I4F 5 5 4 6 2 1.5 6 4.5 5 5I4F I4G 5 5 4 6 2 1 6 5 5 5I4G I5 4 5 3.75 5 1.25 0.5 4.5 4 4 4I5

J1 5 5 5 6 1 1 6 5 5 5J1 J3 4 4 3.75 5.25 1.5 1.5 5 3.5 5 5J3 J4 4.5 5 3 5 2 1 5 4 4 4J4

J5 6 6 5 6 1 Kp 1 6 5 6 5J5 J6 5 5 5 6 1 1.75 5.75 4 5 5J6 J7 5 5 4 5.25 1.25 1 5 4 5 5J7 J8 4 4 4 5.25 1.25 1 5 4 5 5J8

K1 5.5 6 5 6 1 Kp 1 6 5 6 5K1 K2A 5 5 4 6 2 1 5 4 5 5K2A K2B 5 5 4 5 1 1 5 4 4 4K2B K3 4.5 5 4 5 1 2 5 3 5 5K3 K4 5 5 4 5 1 2 5 3 3 4K4 K5 5 5 5 6 1 1 5 4 4 4.5K5 K6 4 4 4 5 1 1.75 5.75 4 4 4.5K6 K7 5 5 4.75 5 0.25 1 5 4 5 5K7 K9 4 4 4 5 1 1 5 4 5 5K9

308

Expert Practitioners Expert Educators/Researchers

Central tendency Dispersion Dispersion Central tendency Median Mode Q1 Q3 IQR IQR Q3 Q1 Mode Median L1 4.5 5 3.75 5 1.25 1 6 5 5 5L1 L2A 4 4 4 5 1 1 5 4 5 5L2A L2B 5 5 4 5 1 1 5 4 5 5L2B L3 4 4 4 5 1 1 5 4 4 5L3 M1 5 5 5 6 1 1 5 4 5 5M1 M2 5 5 5 5 0 0.5 5 4.5 5 5M2

M3 5 5 5 5 0 0.75 5.75 5 5 5M3 M4 4 4 3.5 5 1.5 1.5 5 3.5 4 4M4 M5 5 5 4.75 5 0.25 2 5 3 5 4M5 M6A 4.5 5 3.75 5 1.25 1 5 4 4 4M6A M6C 4 4 3 5 2 1 4 3 4 4M6C M7 4 4 3.75 5 1.25 1.75 5 3.25 5 5M7 N3 4 4 3.75 5.25 1.5 1 6 5 5 5N3 N4A 4.5 3 3 5.25 2.25 1 5 4 5 5N4A N4B 5 5 3 5 2 2 6 4 6 5N4B N6A 5 4 4 6 2 0 5 5 5 5N6A N6B 5 6 4 6 2 1 6 5 5 5N6B O1 4 4 4 5 1 1 5 4 5 5O1 O4 5 5 4 5 1 1.5 5.75 4.25 5 5O4 O5 5 5 4 5 1 1 5 4 5 5O5

O6 6 6 5 6 1 Kp 1 6 5 5 5O6 P1 6 6 5 6 1 Kp 0.5 5.5 5 5 5P1 P2 5 5 5 6 1 1 6 5 5 5P2 P3 5 5 4 5 1 1.75 5.75 4 5 5P3 P4 5 4 4 5.25 1.25 1 6 5 6 5P4 P5 5 5 3.5 5 1.5 1.75 5.75 4 4 4P5 P7 4 3 3 5 2 1 5 4 4 4P7 Q2 5 5 4 5 1 1 5 4 5 5Q2 Q3 5 5 4.75 6 1.25 1 5 4 5 5Q3 Q4 4 4 3 4 1 2.5 4.5 2 2 3Q4 Q5 5 5 4 5 1 0.5 5 4.5 5 5Q5

309

Appendix G

List of competencies identified through the Delphic process

310

C. Harnessing Value

1 Recognize what value is for:

- the customer

- customer’s customer

2 Estimate the sustainability of sources of value

3 Identify customers with high lifetime value

4 Understand the firms’ business model: how various operations combine efforts to create value for the customer

5 Use the firms’ core competencies to maximize value

6 Effectively use alliances to create value

7 Link value (market/customer) to financial performance (shareholder value)

8 Assess the potential value of proprietary technologies

9 Assess the value of intangibles (e.g. Relationships, brands, market intelligence)

A. Marketing Research (MR)

1 Select marketing objectives to be supported by Marketing Research

2 Formulate information requirements necessary to support marketing decisions

3 Understand the fundamentals of MR (know enough to evaluate expert advice)

4 Turn marketing research results into action plans

5 Develop a process to measure the Return On Investment of MR

B. Data Management

1 Set up a monitoring process that periodically provides feedback on vital marketing metrics

2 Understand the characteristics (i.e. limitations, strengths) of:

-Quantitative research methods

-Qualitative research methods

3 Recognize instances when:

-Data mining can be advantageously used

-Qualitative approaches can provide more insight than quantitative methods (e.g. probing customers’ unmet needs)

4 Effectively use data from various sources to improve marketing decisions

5 Manage a competitive intelligence program

6 Collaborate with other functional leaders to ensure the inclusion of marketing data in the business decision-making process

311

D. Value and Pricing

1 Calculate the total costs of offerings (e.g. manufacturing costs, service costs)

2 Understand various pricing approaches

3 Shift from traditional to value-based pricing models

4 Calculate the “value-in-use”1 of offerings

5 Evaluate tradeoff opportunities for market share and price premiums

6 Develop strategies for pricing bundled offerings

7 Estimate the long-term effects of short-term pricing decisions

8 Implement pricing strategies in dynamic environments (uncertain demand and fluctuating capacity)

9 Manage pricing over generations of an offering (e.g. penetration pricing, upgrade pricing)

10 Develop a plan for global pricing

11 Align pricing strategies with government regulations

12 Monitor the effectiveness of pricing strategies over time

E. Market planning

1 Analyze “value webs”2

Analyze value chains

-identify sources for developing sustainable competitive advantage

-identify sources of negative value (i.e. activities or customers that are draining value)

2 Recognize opportunities to build profitable and sustainable cooperative networks

3 Assess potential factors that may help or hinder marketing objectives

4 Design dynamic marketing strategies that can be easily adapted to changing market conditions

5 Monitor competitors marketing efforts (i.e. segmentation, targeting, offerings, pricing) in order to adjust the firm’s marketing strategy

6 Estimate staffing levels (e.g. skill sets) required to carry out marketing plan effectively

7 Formulate marketing plan with options (analyses and recommendations)

8 Articulate marketing plans to all functional elements of the organization

9 Establish processes to measure the ROI of marketing efforts

-in terms of their impact on cash flow

-in terms of their impact on reducing risk for companies

1 Value of an offering which is used in a specific customer application 2 Product eco-systems or value networks

312

F. Market segmentation

1 Identify innovative market segmentation criteria to aggregate customers with similar needs and behaviors

2 Develop innovative segmentation schemes that can be adapted to changing market conditions

3 Identify the fundamental drivers of customer segments

4 Establish performance metrics for each segment

5 Develop cost/profit models to serve each market segment

6 Link segmentation strategies to individual customer offerings

7 Adapt segmentation scheme over product lifecycle

8 Implement segmentation strategies through the sales organization

G. Targeting

1 Define selection criteria for identifying profitable segments

2 Allocate resources based on target segment potential

3 Manage segment specific marketing programs in order to customize marketing and sales efforts

4 Match segment-specific targeting strategy to overall corporate strategy

5 Market the targeted segments to internal stakeholders (i.e. sales, communication, R & D, strategic planning…)

6 Implement targeting strategies through internal stakeholders (ie. sales, R&D, manufacturing)

7 Devise a process to track changes in targeted segments in order to realign targeting strategy

8 Develop an understanding for target segments that goes beyond quantitative analyzes (e.g. live in your market as opposed to flying over it)

H. Positioning

1 Compare the firms’ competitive advantage (functional and perceptual) to its competitors’

2 Assess current brand positions in targeted segments

3 Develop a strategy which will enable a firm to differentiate:

-itself from its competitors

-its offerings from its competitors

4 Evaluate the impact of differentiation (e.g. on the firm’s operations, on profitability)

5 Develop an integrated corporate and brand positioning strategy that is communicated to each market segment

-Clearly communicate a unique value proposition for each target segment

- Test positioning in the market to assess its value to the customers

6 Collaborate with other market players in the positioning of offerings (e.g. via co-op advertising, co-branding, service contracts)

7 Distinguish products/services that can be outsourced while still preserving positioning

8 Understand the principles associated with brand extensions

9 Manage positioning in global markets

10 Tie brand equity to marketing ROI metrics

313

I. Sales integration

1 Distinguish the role of marketing in different sales scenarios (e.g. Solutions selling, strategic selling, relationship selling)

2 Effectively communicate the value proposition to the sales force

3 Identify the respective roles of marketing and sales in the firm in order to better integrate the two functions

4 Collaborate with sales management to:

Align the marketing and the sales plans

Integrate segmentation and targeting into the sales process

Periodically evaluate the effectiveness of marketing efforts

Assist in the design of compensation schemes for sales people to motivate them to achieve both the firms’ sales and marketing objectives

Leverage intelligence from sales

develop strategies to enhance relationships with customers

establish programs for customer retention

5 Monitor the effectiveness of the sales force (e.g. by brand, by market segment)

J. Managing market offerings

1 Recognize the role of service in differentiating offerings

2 Build an offerings portfolio around customer needs and behaviors rather than technologies

3 Develop bundling (de-bundling and re-bundling) strategies

4 Establish a continuous offering improvement process

5 Understand the customer’s business processes in order to better integrate the firm’s offerings into the customer’s processes

6 Discontinue ineffective offerings efficiently

7 Distinguish different value criteria of international customers

8 Rapidly turn customized solutions into offerings

314

K. New Offering Development

1 Involve marketing in the development process of new offerings from the fuzzy front end (project conception) to the launch

2 Forecast:

- market demand

- competitive reaction to a new offering

3 Involve all stakeholders (within the firm, the target segments and the channel) in the development of new offerings

4 Create a process to review new offerings with decision gates at critical steps

5 Assess the risk of failure of new offerings by identifying critical issues that could impact the success of new offering launches

6 Estimate the impact of new offerings on current operations (e.g. selling, distribution channels, and customer service)

7 Align new offerings with the brand positioning strategy

8 Develop value propositions for new offerings based on benefits rather than offering features

9 Balance resources required for product development (time to market) and market development (time to market penetration).

10 Develop solutions which integrate the firm’s offerings with those of partners and competitors (to maximize the offering’s value)

11 Continuously streamline the new offering development process

L. Channel Management

1 Manage channel relationships

2 Develop monitoring programs to track the effectiveness of channels

-Evaluate alternative channels

3 Formulate strategies to address channel conflict

4 Develop processes to assist channels in adding value to the firm’s product/service line

5 Develop processes to facilitate communications between the channel members

6 Optimize distribution by combining online (e.g. e-channels) and offline distribution channels

7 Develop a process for automating response feedback on offers

315

M. Marketing Communications

1 Manage integrated marketing communications that are aligned with offering positioning

2 Develop a theme for the brand that can be built over time, evolving with market conditions

3 Protect brand equity

4 Solicit sales force input into marketing communications programs

5 Design segment-specific communications taking into account cultural and regional differences

6 Recommend programs for reinforcing brand values with all stakeholders (internal/external)

-Select communications media to best deliver messages to targeted audience

-Manage design issues (ie. trademark, logo…) associated with branding

8 Monitor the effectiveness of marketing communications efforts in order to demonstrate a ROI

N. Customer Relationship Management (CRM)

1 Establish processes to manage company wide relationships

2 Integrate all points of customer interaction (ie. account acquisition, account retention and shedding)

3 Embed STP (Segmentation-Targeting-Positioning) into all aspects of CRM

4 Establish processes to:

-manage (capture, analyze and handle) customer feedback (ie. satisfaction, complaints, suggestions)

-share the results of corrective actions with customers

5 Integrate CRM and supply chain management

6 Establish processes to measure:

Customer satisfaction by segment

Customer loyalty by segment

O. Creativity and foresight

1 Integrate ideas into hybrid solutions

2 Anticipate change (i.e. its effects on business)

3 Adapt to a changing business environment

4 Experiment with innovative ideas using calculated risk

5 Evaluate solutions that can streamline and optimize marketing processes

6 Creatively identify market opportunities

316

P. Marketing Leadership

1 Build strong cross functional relationships

2 Align marketing team around a vision/strategy

3 Manage multiple marketing projects simultaneously

4 Demonstrate empathy for a wide cross-section of people (including customers and colleagues)

5 Exhibit exceptional ability to settle conflicts

6 Efficiently delegate work

7 Effectively manage agency relationships (e.g. marketing research, Marketing communications)

8 Behave ethically

Q. Business Acumen

1 Justify marketing decisions in financial terms

2 Understand global market dynamics

3 Ensure that all functions within the organization understand the strategic role of marketing

4 Address not only customer but also investor communications

5 Recognize how technology impacts B-to-B marketing processes (i.e. markets, sales, channels, CRM)

317

Appendix H

Letters of support

318

319

320

Vita

Allen C. Stines EDUCATION Ph.D. Workforce Education & Development Dept. of Learning and Performance Systems - Penn State University (Dec 03) M.S. Technological Systems Management State University of New York at Stony Brook (May 98) A.G.C. Advanced Graduate Certificate in Educational Computing State University of New York at Stony Brook (December 97) B.S. Business Management (Operations and technology) " Applied Mathematics & Statistics (Double Major) College of engineering and applied sciences - State University of New York at Stony Brook (Dec 96) SELECTED PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE HR Development strategy Consultant - (4/03- ) World-wide strategic rollout of Competency-based initiative UNICEF (New York Headquarters/United Nations, NY) Professional Development Team, Trainer/Facilitator (98-2002) Professional Personnel Development Center, University Park, PA Assistant Director Pennsylvania Governors School for Information Technology 2000 School of Information Sciences and Technology, Pennsylvania State University SELECTED RESEARCH Researcher/ Consultant (99-2003) ISBM B2B market management competency project Institute for the study of Business Markets (ISBM), University Park, PA Researcher/ Consultant (1/99-4/99) Community Training Needs Assessment for St. Marys Area (PA) Penn State University (Dubois/WFED University Park) Researcher (9/98-12/98) Behavioral Research Study, "Models for the workplace learner" SELECTED TEACHING Instructor/Lecturer Pennsylvania Governor’s School for Information Technology 2001 School of Information Sciences and Technology, Pennsylvania State University Adjunct Lecturer/Faculty/Lead Instructor (97-98) College of Engineering & Applied Sciences, State University of New York (SUNY) at Stony Brook